LORD'S LECTURES

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY, VOLUME XI

AMERICAN FOUNDERS. 

BY JOHN LORD, LL. D. , AUTHOR OF "THE OLD ROMAN WORLD, " "MODERN EUROPE, "ETC. , ETC. 

PUBLISHERS' PREFACE. 

Dr. Lord's volume on "American Statesmen" was written some years afterthe issue of his volume on "Warriors and Statesmen, " which was Volume IVof his original series of five volumes. The wide popular acceptance ofthe five volumes encouraged him to extend the series by including, andrewriting for the purpose, others of his great range of lectures. Thevolume called "Warriors and Statesmen" (now otherwise distributed)included a number of lectures which in this new edition have beenarranged in more natural grouping. Among them were the lectures onHamilton and Webster. It has been deemed wise to bring these into closerrelation with their contemporaries, and thus Hamilton is now placed inthis volume, among the other "American Founders, " and Webster in thevolume on "American Leaders. "

Of the "Founders" there is one of whom Dr. Lord did not treat, yet whoseservices--especially in the popular confirmation of the Constitution bythe various States, and notably in its fundamental interpretation by theUnited States Supreme Court--rank as vitally important. John Marshall, as Chief Justice of that Court, raised it to a lofty height in thejudicial world, and by his various decisions established theConstitution in its unique position as applicable to all manner ofpolitical and commercial questions--the world's marvel of combinedfirmness and elasticity. To quote Winthrop, as cited by Dr. Lord, it is"like one of those rocking-stones reared by the Druids, which the fingerof a child may vibrate to its centre, yet which the might of an armycannot move from its place. "

So important was Marshall's work, and so potent is the influence of theUnited States Supreme Court, that no apology is needed for introducinginto this volume on our "Founders" a chapter dealing with that greattheme by Professor John Bassett Moore, recently Assistant Secretary ofState; later, Counsel for the Peace Commission at Paris; and nowoccupying the chair of International Law and Diplomacy in the School ofPolitical Science, Columbia University, New York City. 

NEW YORK, September, 1902. 

CONTENTS. 

PRELIMINARY CHAPTER. 

THE AMERICAN IDEA. 

Basis of American institutionsTheir originThe Declaration of IndependenceDuties rather than rights enjoined in Hebrew ScripturesRoman laws in reference to rightsRousseau and the "Contrat Social"Calvinism and libertyHolland and the PuritansThe English ConstitutionThe Anglo-Saxon LawsThe Guild systemTeutonic passion for personal independenceEnglish PuritansPuritan settlers in New EnglandPuritans and Dutch settlers comparedTraits of the Pilgrim FathersNew England town-meetingsLove of learning among the Puritan colonistsConfederation of townsColonial governorsSelf-government; use of fire-armsParish ministersReligious freedomGrowth of the coloniesThe conquest of CanadaColonial discontentsDesire for political independenceOppressive English legislationDenial of the right of taxationJames Otis and Samuel AdamsThe Stamp ActBoston Port BillBritish troops in BostonThe Battle of LexingtonLiberty under law

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. 

DIPLOMACY. 

Birth of FranklinHis early daysLeaves the printer's tradeGoes to PhiladelphiaVisit to EnglandReturns to PhiladelphiaPrints a newspaperEstablishes the "Junto"Marries Deborah ReidEstablishes a library"Poor Richard"Clerk of the General AssemblyBusiness prosperityRetirement from businessScientific investigationsFounds the University of PennsylvaniaScientific inventionsFranklin's materialismAppointed postmaster-generalThe PennsThe QuakersFranklin sent as colonial agent to LondonDifficulties and annoyancesAcquaintances and friendsReturns to AmericaElected member of the AssemblyEnglish taxation of the coloniesEnglish coercionFranklin again sent to EnglandAt the bar of the House of CommonsRepeal of the Stamp ActFranklin appointed agent for MassachusettsThe Hutchinson lettersFranklin a member of the Continental CongressSent as envoy to FranceHis tact and wisdomUnbounded popularity in FranceEmbarrassments in raising moneyThe recall of Silas DeaneFranklin's useful career as diplomatistAssociated with John Jay and John AdamsThe treaty of peaceFranklin returns to AmericaHis bodily infirmitiesHappy domestic lifeChosen member of the Constitutional ConventionSickness; death; servicesDeeds and fame

GEORGE WASHINGTON. 

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 

Washington's origin and familyHis early lifePersonal traitsFriendship with Lord FairfaxWashington as surveyorAide to General BraddockMember of the House of BurgessesMarriage, and life at Mount VernonMember of the Continental CongressGeneral-in-chief of the American armiesHis peculiarities as generalAt CambridgeOrganization of the armyDefence of BostonBritish evacuation of BostonWashington in New YorkRetreat from New YorkIn New JerseyForlorn condition of the armyArrival at the DelawareFabian PolicyThe battle of TrentonIntrenchment at MorristownExpulsion of the British from New JerseyThe gloomy winter of 1777Washington defends PhiladelphiaBattle of GermantownSurrender of BurgoyneIntrigues of GatesBaron SteubenWinter at Valley ForgeBritish evacuation of PhiladelphiaBattle of MonmouthWashington at White PlainsBenedict ArnoldMilitary operations at the SouthGeneral GreeneLord CornwallisHis surrender at YorktownClose of the warWashington at Mount VernonElected presidentAlexander HamiltonJohn JayWashington as presidentEstablishment of United States BankRivalries and dissensions between Hamilton and JeffersonFrench intriguesJay treatyCitizen GenetWashington's administrationsRetirement of WashingtonDeath, character, and services

ALEXANDER HAMILTON. 

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. 

Hamilton's youthEducationPrecocity of intellectState of political parties on the breaking out of the Revolutionary WarTheir principlesTheir great menHamilton leaves college for the armySelected by Washington as his aide-de-camp at the age of nineteenHis early services to WashingtonSuggestions to members of CongressTrials and difficulties of the patriotsDemoralization of the countryHamilton in active military serviceLeaves the army; marries; studies lawOpening of his legal careerHis peculiarities as a lawyerContrasted with Aaron BurrHamilton enters political lifeSees the necessity of a constitutionConvention at AnnapolisConvention at PhiladelphiaThe remarkable statesmen assembledDiscussion of the ConventionGreat questions at issueConstitution framedInfluence of Hamilton in its formationIts ratification by the States"The Federalist"Hamilton, Secretary of the TreasuryHis transcendent financial geniusRestores the national creditHis various political services as statesmanThe father of American industryProtectionFederalists and RepublicansHamilton's political influence after his retirementResumes the lawHis quarrel with BurrHis duelHis deathBurr's character and crimeHamilton's servicesHis lasting influence

JOHN ADAMS. 

CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMANSHIP. 

The Adams familyYouth and education of John AdamsNew England in the eighteenth centuryAdams as oratorAs lawyerThe Stamp ActThe "Boston Massacre"Effects of English taxationDestruction of tea at BostonAdams sent to CongressHis efforts to secure national independenceCriticisms of the CongressBattles of Lexington and ConcordAdams moves Washington's appointment as general-in-chiefSent to FranceAdams as diplomatistHis jealousy of FranklinAdams in EnglandAs vice-presidentAristocratic sympathiesAs presidentFormation of political partiesThe Federalists; the RepublicansAdams compared with JeffersonDiscontent of AdamsStrained relations between France and the United StatesThe Alien and Sedition lawsDecline of the Federal partyAdams's tenacity of officeHis services to the StateAdams in retirement

THOMAS JEFFERSON. 

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. 

Thomas JeffersonBirth and early educationLaw studiesLiberal principlesPractises lawSuccessful, but no oratorEnters the House of BurgessesMarries a rich widowBuilds "Monticello"Member of the Continental CongressDrafts the Declaration of IndependenceEnters the State LegislatureGovernor of VirginiaAppointed minister to FranceHails the French RevolutionServices as a diplomatistSecretary of stateRivalry with HamiltonLove of peaceFounds the Democratic partyContrasted with HamiltonBecomes vice-presidentInaugurated as presidentPolicy as presidentThe purchase of LouisianaAaron BurrHis brilliant career and treasonable schemesArrest and trialSubsequent reversesThe Non-importation ActStrained relations between France and the United StatesEnglish aggressionsThe peace policy of JeffersonThe embargoTriumph of the Democratic partyResults of universal suffragePrivate life of JeffersonRetirement to MonticelloVast correspondence; hospitalityFame as a writerFriend of religious liberty and popular educationFounds the University of VirginiaHis great services

JOHN MARSHALL. 

BY JOHN BASSETT MOORE. 

THE SUPREME COURT. 

The States of the American Union after the Revolution, for a time aloose confederation, retaining for the most part powers of independentgovernments. 

The Constitution (1787-89) sought to remedy this and other defects. 

One Supreme Court created, in which was vested the judicial power of theUnited States. 

John Marshall, in order the fourth Chief Justice (1801-35), takespre-eminent part in the development of the judicial power. 

Earns the title of "Expounder of the Constitution". 

Birth (1755) and parentage. 

His active service in the Revolutionary War. 

Admitted to the bar (1780) and begins practice (1781). 

A member of the Virginia Legislature. 

Supporter of Washington's administrations, and leader of Federal party. 

United States Envoy to France (1797-98). 

Member of Congress from Virginia (1799-1800), and supporter of PresidentAdams's administration. 

Secretary of State in Adams's Cabinet (1800-01). 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

His many important decisions on constitutional questions. 

Maintains power of the Supreme Court to decide upon theconstitutionality of Acts of Congress. 

Asserts power of Federal Government to incorporate banks, with freedomfrom State control and taxation. 

Maintains also its power to regulate commerce, free from Statehindrance or obstruction. 

His constitutional opinion, authoritative and unshaken. 

His decisions on questions of International Law. 

Decides the status of a captured American vessel visiting her nativeport as a foreign man-of-war. 

Sound decision respecting prize cases. 

His views and rulings respecting confiscation of persons and property intime of war. 

Personal characteristics and legal acumen. 

Weight and influence of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME XI. 

Surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown. _After the painting by Ch. Ed. Armand Dumaresq_

Puritans Going to Church_After the painting by G. H. Boughton_. 

Benjamin Franklin_After the painting by Baron Jos. Sifrède Duplessis_. 

Franklin's Experiments with Electricity_After the painting by Karl Storch_. 

The Fight of the Bonhomme Richard and Serapis_After the painting by J. O. Davidson_. 

George Washington_After the painting by Gilbert Stuart_

Washington's Home at Mt. Vernon_From a photograph_. 

Alexander Hamilton_After the painting by Gilbert Stuart_. 

Duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr_After the painting by J. Mund_. 

John Adams_After the painting by Gilbert Stuart_. 

Patrick Henry's Speech in the House of Burgesses_After the painting by Rothermel_. 

Thomas Jefferson_After the painting by Gilbert Stuart_. 

John Marshall_From an engraving after the painting by Inman_. 

PRELIMINARY CHAPTER

THE AMERICAN IDEA. 

1600-1775. 

In a survey of American Institutions there seem to be three fundamentalprinciples on which they are based: first, that all men are naturallyequal in rights; second, that a people cannot be taxed without their ownconsent; and third, that they may delegate their power ofself-government to representatives chosen by themselves. 

The remote origin of these principles it is difficult to trace. Somesuppose that they are innate, appealing to consciousness, --concerningwhich there can be no dispute or argument. Others suppose that theyexist only so far as men can assert and use them, whether granted byrulers or seized by society. Some find that they arose among ourTeutonic ancestors in their German forests, while still others go backto Jewish, Grecian, and Roman history for their origin. Wherever theyoriginated, their practical enforcement has been a slow and unequalgrowth among various peoples, and it is always the evident result of anevolution, or development of civilization. 

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jeffersonasserts that "all men are created equal, " and that among theirindisputable rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "Nobody disputes this; and yet, looking critically into the matter, itseems strange that, despite Jefferson's own strong anti-slaverysentiments, his associates should have excluded the colored race fromthe common benefits of humanity, unless the negroes in their plantationswere not men at all, only things or chattels. The American people wentthrough a great war and spent thousands of millions of dollars tomaintain the indissoluble union of their States; but the events of thatwar and the civil reconstruction forced the demonstration that Africanslaves have the same inalienable rights for recognition before the lawas the free descendants of the English and the Dutch. The statement ofthe Declaration has been formally made good; and yet, whence came it?

If we go back to the New Testament, the great Charter of Christendom, insearch of rights, we are much puzzled to find them definitely declaredanywhere; but we find, instead, duties enjoined with great clearnessand made universally binding. It is only by a series of deductions, especially from Saint Paul's epistles, that we infer the right ofChristian liberty, with no other check than conscience, --the being madefree by the gospel of Christ, emancipated from superstition andtyrannies of opinion; yet Paul says not a word about the manumission ofslaves, as a right to which they are justly entitled, any more than heurges rebellion against a constituted civil government because it is adespotism. The burden of his political injunctions is submission toauthority, exhortations to patience under the load of evils andtribulations which so many have to bear without hope of relief. 

In the earlier Jewish jurisprudence we find laws in relation to propertywhich recognize natural justice as clearly as does the jurisprudence ofRome; but revolt and rebellion against bad rulers or kings, although aptto take place, were nowhere enjoined, unless royal command shouldmilitate against the sovereignty of God, --the only ultimate authority. By the Hebrew writers, bad rulers are viewed as a misfortune to thepeople ruled, which they must learn to bear, hoping for better times, trusting in Providence for relief, rather than trying to remove byviolence. It is He who raises up deliverers in His good time, to reignin justice and equity. If anything can be learned from the HebrewScriptures in reference to rights, it is the injunction to obey Godrather than man, in matters where conscience is concerned; and thisagain merges into duty, but is susceptible of vast applications toconduct as controlled by individual opinion. 

Under Roman rule native rights fare no better. Paul could appeal fromJewish tyrants to Caesar in accordance with his rights as a Romancitizen; but his Roman citizenship had nothing to do with any inbornrights as a man. Paul could appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen. Forwhat? For protection, for the enjoyment of certain legal privilegeswhich the Empire had conferred upon Roman citizenship, not for anyrights which he could claim as a human being. If the Roman lawsrecognized any rights, it was those which the State had given, not thosewhich are innate and inalienable, and which the State could not justlytake away. I apprehend that even in the Greek and Roman republics nocivil rights could be claimed except those conferred upon men ascitizens rather than as human beings. Slaves certainly had no rights, and they composed half the population of the old Roman world. Rightswere derived from decrees or laws, not from human consciousness. 

Where then did Jefferson get his ideas as to the equal rights to whichmen were born? Doubtless from the French philosophers of the eighteenthcentury, especially from Rousseau, who, despite his shortcomings as aman, was one of the most original thinkers that his century produced, and one of the most influential in shaping the opinions of civilizedEurope. In his "Contrat Social" Rousseau appealed to consciousness, rather than to authorities or the laws of nations. He took his stand onthe principles of eternal justice in all he wrote as to civil liberties, and hence he kindled an immense enthusiasm for liberty as aninalienable right. 

But Rousseau came from Switzerland, where the passion for personalindependence was greater than in any other part of Europe, --a passionperhaps inherited from the old Teutonic nations in their forests, onwhich Tacitus dilates, next to their veneration for woman the mostinteresting trait among the Germanic barbarians. No Eastern nation, except the ancient Persians, had these traits. The law of liberty is anOccidental rather than an Oriental peculiarity, and arose among theAryans in their European settlements. Moreover, Rousseau lived in a citywhere John Calvin had taught the principles of religious liberty whichafterwards took root in Holland, England, Scotland, and France, andcreated the Puritans and Huguenots. The central idea of Calvinism is theright to worship God according to the dictates of conscience, enlightened by the Bible. Rousseau was no Calvinist, but the principlesof religious and civil liberty are so closely connected that he may havecaught their spirit at Geneva, in spite of his hideous immorality andhis cynical unbelief. Yet even Calvin's magnificent career in defence ofthe right of conscience to rebel against authority, which laid the solidfoundation of theology and church discipline on which Protestantism wasbuilt up, arrived at such a pitch of arbitrary autocracy as to showthat, if liberty be "human" and "native, " authority is no less so. 

Whether, then, liberty is a privilege granted to a few, or a right towhich all people are justly entitled, it is bootless to discuss; but itsdevelopment among civilized nations is a worthy object ofhistorical inquiry. 

A late writer, Douglas Campbell, with some plausibility and considerablelearning, traces to the Dutch republic most that is valuable in Americaninstitutions, such as town-meetings, representative government, restriction of taxation by the people, free schools, toleration ofreligious worship, and equal laws. No doubt the influence of Holland inthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in stimulating free inquiry, religious toleration, and self-government, as well as learning, commerce, manufactures, and the arts, was considerable, not only on thePuritan settlers of New England, but perhaps on England itself. Nodoubt the English Puritans who fled to Holland during the persecutionsof Archbishop Laud learned much from a people whose religious oracle wasCalvin, and whose great hero was William the Silent. Mr. Motley, in themost brilliant and perhaps the most learned history ever written by anAmerican, has made a revelation of a nation heretofore supposed to bedull, money-loving, and uninteresting. Too high praise cannot be givento those brave and industrious people who redeemed their morasses fromthe sea, who grew rich and powerful without the natural advantages ofsoil and climate, who fought for eighty years against the whole power ofSpain, who nobly secured their independence against overwhelming forces, who increased steadily in population and wealth when obliged to opentheir dikes upon their cultivated fields, who established universitiesand institutions of learning when almost driven to despair, and whobecame the richest people in Europe, whitening the ocean with theirships, establishing banks and colonies, creating a new style ofpainting, and teaching immortal lessons in government when they occupieda country but little larger than Wales. Civilization is as proud of sucha country as Holland as of Greece itself. 

With all this, I still believe that it is to England we must go for theorigin of what we are most proud of in our institutions, much as theDutch have taught us for which we ought to be grateful, and much as wemay owe to French sceptics and Swiss religionists. This belief isconfirmed by a book I have just read by Hannis Taylor on the "Origin andGrowth of the English Constitution. " It is not an artistic history, byany means, but one in which the author has brought out the recentinvestigations of Edward Freeman, John Richard Green, Bishop Stubbs, Professor Gneist of Berlin, and others, who with consummate learninghave gone to the roots of things, --some of whom, indeed, are drywriters, regardless of style, disdainful of any thing but facts, whichthey have treated with true scholastic minuteness. It appears from thesehistorians, as quoted by Taylor, and from other authorities to which theearlier writers on English history had no access, that the germs of ourfree institutions existed among the Anglo-Saxons, and were developed toa considerable extent among their Norman conquerors in the thirteenthand fourteenth centuries, when barons extorted charters from kings intheir necessities, and when the common people of Saxon origin securedvaluable rights and liberties, which they afterwards lost under theTudor and Stuart princes. I need not go into a detail of these. It iscertain that in the reign of Edward I. (1274-1307), himself a mostaccomplished and liberal civil ruler, the English House of Commons hadbecome very powerful, and had secured in Parliament the right oforiginating money bills, and the control of every form of taxation, --onthe principle that the people could not be taxed without their ownconsent. To this principle kings gave their assent, reluctantly indeed, and made use of all their statecraft to avoid compliance with it, inspite of their charters and their royal oaths. But it was a politicalidea which held possession of the minds of the people from the reign ofEdward I. To that of Henry IV. During this period all citizens had theright of suffrage in their boroughs and towns, in the election ofcertain magistrates. They were indeed mostly controlled by the lord ofthe manor and by the parish priest, but liberty was not utterlyextinguished in England, even by Norman kings and nobles; it existed toa greater degree than in any continental State out of Italy. It cannotbe doubted that there was a constitutional government in England asearly as in the time of Edward I. , and that the power of kings was eventhen checked by parliamentary laws. 

In Freeman's "Norman Conquest, " it appears that the old English town, orborough, is purely of Teutonic origin. In this, local self-government isdistinctly recognized, although it subsequently was controlled by theparish priest and the lord of the manor under the influence of thepapacy and feudalism; in other words, the ancient jurisdiction of thetun-mõt--or town-meeting--survived in the parish vestry and the manorialcourt. The guild system, according to Kendall, had its origin in Englandat a very early date, and a great influence was exercised on popularliberty by the meetings of the various guilds, composed, as they were, of small freemen. The guild law became the law of the town, with theright to elect its magistrates. "The old reeve or bailiff was supplantedby mayor and aldermen, and the practice of sending the reeve and fourmen as the representatives of the township to the shire-moot widenedinto the practice of sending four discreet men as representatives of thecounty to confer with the king in his great council touching the affairsof the kingdom. " "In 1376, " says Taylor, "the Commons, intent uponcorrecting the evil practices of the sheriff, petitioned that theknights of the shire might be chosen by common election of the betterfolk of the shires, and not nominated by the sheriff; and Edward III. Assented to the request. "

I will not dwell further on the origin and maintenance of freeinstitutions in England while Continental States were oppressed by allthe miseries of royalty and feudalism. But beyond all the charters andlaws which modern criticism had raked out from buried or forgottenrecords, there is something in the character of the English yeoman whicheven better explains what is most noticeable in the settlement of theAmerican Colonies, especially in New England. The restless passion forpersonal independence, the patience, the energy, the enterprise, eventhe narrowness and bigotry which marked the English middle classes inall the crises of their history, stand out in bold relief in thecharacter of the New England settlers. All their traits are notinteresting, but they are English, and represent the peculiarities ofthe Anglo-Saxons, rather than of the Normans. In England, they produceda Latimer rather than a Cranmer, --a Cromwell rather than a Stanley. TheSaxon yeomanry at the time of Chaucer were not aristocratic, butdemocratic. They had an intense hatred of Norman arrogance andaggression. Their home life was dull, but virtuous. They cared butlittle for the sports of the chase, compared with the love which theNorman aristocracy always had for such pleasures. It was among them thattwo hundred years later the reformed doctrines of Calvin took thedeepest hold, since these were indissolubly blended with civil liberty. There was something in the blood of the English Puritans which fittedthem to be the settlers of a new country, independent of cravings forreligious liberty. In their new homes in the cheerless climate of NewEngland we see traits which did not characterize the Dutch settlers ofNew York; we find no patroons, no ambition to be great landedproprietors, no desire to live like country squires, as in Virginia. They were more restless and enterprising than their Dutch neighbors, andwith greater public spirit in dangers. They loved the discussion ofabstract questions which it was difficult to settle. They produced agreater number of orators and speculative divines in proportion to theirwealth and number than the Dutch, who were phlegmatic and fond of easeand comfort, and did not like to be disturbed by the discussion ofnovelties. They had more of the spirit of progress than the colonists ofNew York. There was a quiet growth among them of those ideas whichfavored political independence, while also there was more intolerance, both social and religious. They hanged witches and persecuted theQuakers. They kept Sunday with more rigor than the Dutch, and were lessfond of social festivities. They were not so genial and frank in theirsocial gatherings, although fonder of excitement. 

Among all the new settlers, however, both English and Dutch, we see oneelement in common, --devotion to the cause of liberty and hatred ofoppression and wrong, learned from the weavers of Ghent as well as fromthe burghers of Exeter and Bristol. 

In another respect the Dutch and English resembled each other: theywere equally fond of the sea, and of commercial adventures, and hencewere noted fishermen as well as thrifty merchants. And they equallyrespected learning, and gave to all their children the rudiments ofeducation. At the time the great Puritan movement began, the Englishwere chiefly agriculturists and the Dutch were merchants andmanufacturers. Wool was exported from England to purchase the cloth intowhich it was woven. There were sixty thousand weavers in Ghent alone, and the towns and cities of Flanders and Holland were richer and morebeautiful than those of England. 

It will be remembered that New York (Nieuw Amsterdam) was settled by theDutch in 1613, and Jamestown, Virginia, by the Elizabethan colonies in1607. So that both of these colonies antedated the coming of thePilgrims to Massachusetts in 1620. It is true that most of the historiesof the United States have been written by men of New England origin, andthat therefore by natural predilection they have made more of the NewEngland influence than of the other elements among the Colonies. Yetthis is not altogether the result of prejudice; for, despite thesplendid roll of soldiers and statesmen from the Middle and Southernsections of the country who bore so large a share in the critical eventsof the transition era of the Revolution, it remains that the brunt ofresistance to tyranny fell first and heaviest on New England, and thatthe principal influences that prepared the general sentiment of revolt, union, war, and independence proceeded from those colonies. 

The Puritan exodus from England, chiefly from the eastern counties, first to Holland, and then to New England, was at its height during thepersecutions of Archbishop Laud in the reign of Charles I. ThePilgrims--as the small company of Separatists were called who followedtheir Puritanism to the extent of breaking entirely away from theChurch, and who left Holland for America--came to barren shores, afterhaving learned many things from the Dutch. Their pilgrimage was taken, not with the view of improving their fortunes, like the morearistocratic settlers of Virginia, but to develop their peculiar ideas. It must be borne in mind that the civilization they brought with themwas a growth from Teutonic ancestry, --an evolution from Saxon times, although it is difficult to trace the successive developments during theNorman rule. The Pilgrims brought with them to America an intense loveof liberty, and consequently an equally intense hatred of arbitrarytaxation. Their enjoyment of religious rights was surpassed only bytheir aversion to Episcopacy. They were a plain and simple people, whoabhorred the vices of the patrician class at home; but they lovedlearning, and sought to extend knowledge, as the bulwark of freeinstitutions. The Puritans who followed them within ten years andsettled Massachusetts Bay and Salem, were direct from England. They werenot Separatists, like the Pilgrims, but Presbyterians; they hatedEpiscopacy, but would have had Church and State united underPresbyterianism. They were intolerant, as against Roger Williams and the"witches, " and at first perpetrated cruelties like those from which theythemselves had fled. But something in the free air of the big continentdeveloped the spirit of liberty among them until they, too, like thePilgrims, became Independents and Separatists, --and so, Congregationalists rather than Presbyterians. 

The first thing we note among these New Englanders was theirtown-meetings, derived from the ancient folk-mote, in which they electedtheir magistrates, and imposed upon themselves the necessary taxes forschools, highways, and officers of the law. They formed self-governedcommunities, who selected for rulers their ablest and fittest men, marked for their integrity and intelligence, --grave, austere, unselfish, and incorruptible. Money was of little account in comparison withcharacter. The earliest settlers were the picked and chosen men of theyeomanry of England, and generally thrifty and prosperous. Their leadershad had high social positions in their English homes, and theirministers were chiefly graduates of the universities, some of whom werefine scholars in both Hebrew and Greek, had been settled in importantparishes, and would have attained high ecclesiastical rank had they notbeen nonconformists, --opposed to the ritual, rather than the theologicaltenets of the English Church as established by Elizabeth. Of course theywere Calvinists, more rigid even than their brethren in Geneva. TheBible was to them the ultimate standard of authority--civil andreligious. The only restriction on suffrage was its being conditioned onchurch-membership. They aspired, probably from Calvinistic influence, but aspired in vain, to establish a theocracy, borrowed somewhat fromthat of the Jews. I do not agree with Mr. John Fiske, in his able andinteresting history of the "Beginnings of New England, " that "thePuritan appealed to reason;" I think that the Bible was their ultimateauthority in all matters pertaining to religion. As to civil government, the reason may have had a great place in their institutions; but thesegrew up from their surroundings rather than from study or the experienceof the past. There was more originality in them than it is customary tosuppose. They were the development of Old England life in New England, but grew in many respects away from the parent stock. 

The next thing of mark among the Colonists was their love of learning;all children were taught to read and write. They had been settled atPlymouth, Salem, and Boston less than twenty years when they establishedHarvard College, chiefly for the education of ministers, who took thehighest social rank in the Colonies, and were the most influentialpeople. Lawyers and physicians were not so well educated. As forlawyers, there was but little need of them, since disputes were mostlysettled either by the ministers or the selectmen of the towns, who werethe most able and respectable men of the community. What the theocraticPuritans desired the most was educated ministers and schoolmasters. In1641 a school was established in Hartford, Connecticut, which was freeto the poor. By 1642 every township in Massachusetts had a schoolmaster, and in 1665 every one embracing fifty families a common school. If thetown had over one hundred families it had a grammar school, in whichLatin was taught. It is probable, however, that the idea of populareducation originated with the Dutch. Elizabeth and her ministers did notbelieve in the education of the masses, of which we read but littleuntil the 19th century. As early as 1582 the Estates of Frieslanddecreed that the inhabitants of towns and villages should provide goodand able Reformed schoolmasters, so that when the Englishnonconformists dwelt in Leyden in 1609 the school, according to Motley, had become the common property of the people. 

The next thing we note among the Colonists of New England is theconfederation of towns and their representation in the Legislature, orthe General Court. This was formed to settle questions of commoninterest, to facilitate commerce, to establish a judicial system, todevise means for protection against hostile Indians, to raise taxes tosupport the common government. The Legislature, composed of delegateschosen by the towns, exercised most of the rights of sovereignty, especially in the direction of military affairs and the collectionof revenue. 

The governors were chosen by the people in secret ballot, until theliberal charter granted by Charles I. Was revoked, and a royal governorwas placed over the four confederated Colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. This confederation was not afederal union, but simply a league for mutual defence against theIndians. Each Colony managed its own internal affairs, withoutinterference from England, until 1684. 

Down to this time the Colonies had been too insignificant to attractmuch notice in England, and hence were left to develop theirinstitutions in their own way, according to the circumstances whichcontrolled them, and the dangers with which they were surrounded. Onething is clear: the infant Colonies governed themselves, and electedtheir own magistrates, from the governor to the selectmen; and this wastrue as well of the Middle and Southern as of the Eastern Colonies. Evenin Virginia quite as large a proportion of the people took part inelections as in Massachusetts. It is difficult to find any similarinstance of uncontrolled self-government, either in Holland or Englandat any period of their history. Either the king, or the Parliament, orthe lord of the manor, or the parish priest controlled appointments orinterfered with them, and even when the people directly selected theirmagistrates, suffrage was not universal, as it gradually came to be inthe Colonies, with slight restrictions, --one of the features of thedevelopment of American institutions. 

Another thing we notice among the Colonies, which had no inconsiderableinfluence on their growth, was the use of fire-arms among all thepeople, to defend themselves from hostile Indians. Every man had hismusket and powder-flask; and there were several periods when it was notsafe even to go to church unarmed. Thus were the new settlers inured todanger and self-defence, and bloody contests with their savage foes. They grew up practically soldiers, and formed a firm material for aneffective militia, able to face regular troops and even engage ineffective operations, as seen afterwards in the conquest of Louisburg bySir William Pepperell, a Kittery merchant. But for the universal use offire-arms, either for war or game, it is doubtful if the Colonies couldhave won their independence. And it is interesting to notice that, whilethe free carrying of weapons, in these later days at least, is apt toresult in rough lawlessness, as in our frontier regions, among theserious and law-abiding Colonists of those early times it was not so. This was probably due both to their strict religious obligations and tothe presence of their wives and children. 

The unrestricted selection of parish ministers by the people was noslight cause of New England growth, and was also a peculiar custom orinstitution not seen in the mother country, where appointment toparishes was chiefly in the hands of the aristocracy or the crown. Either the king, or the lord chancellor, or the universities, or thenobility, or the county squires had the gift of the "livings, " oftenbestowed on ignorant or worldly or inefficient men, the younger sons ofmen of rank, who made no mark, and were incapable of instruction orindifferent to their duties. In New England the minister of the parishwas elected by the church members or congregation, and if he could notedify his hearers by his sermons, or if his character did not commandrespect, his occupation was gone, or his salary was not paid. Inconsequence the ministers were generally gifted men, well educated, andin sympathy with the people. Who can estimate the influence of suchreligious teachers on everything that pertained to New England life andgrowth, --on morals, on education, on religious and civil institutions!

Although we have traced the early characteristics of the New EnglandColonists, especially because it was in New England first and chieflythat the spirit of resistance to English oppression grew to a sentimentfor independence, it is not to be overlooked that the essential elementsof self-controlling manhood were common throughout all the Colonies. Andeverywhere it seems to have grown out of the germ of a devotion toreligious freedom, developed on a secluded continent, where men wereshut in by the sea on the one hand, and perils from the fierceaborigines on the other. The Puritans of New England, the Hollanders ofNew York, Penn's Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the Huguenots of SouthCarolina, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, were all of Calvinistic trainingand came from European persecutions. All were rigidly Puritanical intheir social and Sabbatarian observances. Even the Episcopalians ofVirginia, where a larger Norman-English stock was settled, withinfusions of French-Huguenot blood, and where slavery bred more men ofwealth and broader social distinctions, were sternly religious in theirlaws, although far more lax and pleasure-loving in their customs. Everywhere, this new life of Englishmen in a new land developed theirself-reliance, their power of work, their skill in arms, their habit ofcommon association for common purposes, and their keen, intelligentknowledge of political conditions, with a tenacious grip on their rightsas Englishmen. 

In the enjoyment, then, of unknown civil and religious liberties, ofequal laws, and a mild government, the Colonies rapidly grew, in spiteof Indian wars. In New England they had also to combat a hard soil and acold climate. Their equals in rugged strength, in domestic virtues, inreligious veneration were not to be seen on the face of the whole earth. They may have been intolerant, narrow-minded, brusque and rough inmanners, and with little love or appreciation of art; they may have beenopinionated and self-sufficient: but they were loyal to duties and totheir "Invisible King. " Above all things, they were tenacious of theirrights, and scrupled no sacrifices to secure them, and to perpetuatethem among their children. 

It is not my object to describe the history of the Puritans, after theyhad made a firm settlement in the primeval forests, down to theRevolutionary War, but only to glance at the institutions they createdor adopted, which have extended more or less over all parts of NorthAmerica, and laid the foundation for a magnificent empire. 

At the close of the Seven Years' War, in 1763, which ended in theconquest of Canada from the French by the combined forces of England andher American subjects, the population of the Colonies--in New Englandand the Middle and Southern sections--was not far from two millions. Success in war and some development in wealth naturally engenderedself-confidence. I apprehend that the secret and unavowed consciousnessof power, creating the desire to be a nation rather than a mere colonydependent on Great Britain, --or, if colonies, yet free and untrammelledby the home government, --had as much to do with the struggle forindependence as the discussion of rights, at least among the leaders ofthe people, both clerical and lay. The feeling that they were notrepresented in Parliament was not of much account, for more than threequarters of the English at home had no representation at all. To berepresented in Parliament was utterly impracticable, and everybody knewit. But when arbitrary measures were adopted by the English government, in defiance of charters, the popular orators made a good point inmagnifying the injustice of "taxation without representation. "

The Colonies had been marvellously prospered, and if not rich they werepowerful, and were spreading toward the indefinite and unexplored West. The Seven Years' War had developed their military capacity. It was NewEngland troops which had taken Louisburg. The charm of Britishinvincibility had been broken by Braddock's defeat. The Americans hadlearned self-reliance in their wars with the Indians, and had nearlyexterminated them along the coast without British aid. The Coloniststhree thousand miles away from England had begun to feel theirimportance, and to realize the difficulty of their conquest by anyforces that England could command. The self-exaggeration common to allnew countries was universal. Few as the people were, compared with thepopulation of the mother country, their imagination was boundless. Theyfelt, if they did not clearly foresee, their inevitable future. TheNorth American continent was theirs by actual settlement and long habitsof self-government, and they were determined to keep it. Why should theybe dependent on a country that crippled their commerce, that stifledtheir manufactures, that regulated their fisheries, that appointed theirgovernors, and regarded them with selfish ends, --as a people to betaxed in order that English merchants and manufacturers should beenriched? They did not feel weak or dependent; what new settlers in theWestern wilds ever felt that they could not take care of their farms andtheir flocks and everything which they owned?

Doubtless such sentiments animated far-reaching men, to whom liberty wasso sweet, and power so enchanting. They could not openly avow themwithout danger of arrest, until resistance was organized. They contentedthemselves with making the most of oppressive English legislation, tostimulate the people to discontent and rebellion. Ambition was hiddenunder the burden of taxation which was to make them slaves. Althoughamong the leaders there was great veneration for English tradition andlaw, the love they professed for England was rather an ideal sentimentthan an actual feeling, except among aristocrats and men of rank. 

Nor was it natural that the Colonists, especially the Puritans, shouldcherish much real affection for a country that had persecuted them anddriven them away. They felt that not so much Old England as New Englandwas their home, in which new sentiments had been born, and newaspirations had been cultivated. It was very seldom that a colonistvisited England at all, and except among the recent comers theirEnglish relatives were for the most part unknown. Loyalty to the kingwas gradually supplanted by devotion to the institutions which they hadadopted, or themselves created. In a certain sense they admitted thatthey were still subject to Great Britain, but one hundred and fiftyyears of self-government had nearly destroyed this feeling ofallegiance, especially when they were aroused to deny the right of theEnglish government to tax them without their own consent. 

With the denial of the right of taxation by England naturally cameresistance. 

The first line of opposition arose under a new attempt of England toenforce the Sugar Act, which was passed to prevent the Americanimportation of sugar and molasses from the West Indies, in exchange forlumber and agricultural products. It had been suffered to fall intoabeyance; but suddenly in 1761 the government issued Writs of Assistanceor search-warrants, authorizing customs officers to enter private storesand dwellings to find imported goods, not necessarily known but wheneven suspected to be there. This was first brought to bear inMassachusetts, where the Colonists spiritedly refused to submit, andtook the matter into the courts. James Otis, a young Boston lawyer, wasadvocate for the Admiralty, but, resigning his commission, he appearedon behalf of the people, and his fiery eloquence aroused the Coloniststo a high pitch of revolutionary resolve. John Adams, who heard thespeech, declared, "Then and there American independence was born. "Independency however, was not yet in most men's minds, but the spirit ofresistance to arbitrary acts of the sovereign was unmistakably aroused. In 1763 a no less memorable contest arose in Virginia, when the kingrefused to sanction a law of the colonial legislature imposing a taxwhich the clergy were unwilling to submit to. This too was tested in thecourts, and a young lawyer named Patrick Henry defended so eloquentlythe right of Virginia to make her own laws in spite of the king, thathis passionate oratory inflamed all that colony with the same"treasonable" spirit. 

But the centre of resistance was in Boston, where in 1765 the peoplewere incited to enthusiasm by the eloquence of James Otis and SamuelAdams, in reference to still another restrictive tax, the Stamp Act, which could not be enforced, except by overwhelming military forces, andwas wisely repealed by Parliament. This was followed by the impositionof duties on wine, oil, fruits, glass, paper, lead, colors andespecially tea, an indirect taxation, but equally obnoxious; increasingpopular excitement, the sending of troops, collision between thesoldiers and the people in 1770, and in 1773 the rebellious act of thefamous "Tea Party, " when citizens in the guise of Indians emptied thechests of tea on board merchantmen into Boston harbor. Soon after, theBoston Port Bill was passed, which shut up American commerce and createdimmense irritation. Then were sent to the rebellious city regiments ofBritish troops to enforce the acts of Parliament; and finally the troopswere, at the people's expense, quartered in the town, which was treatedas a conquered city. 

In view of these disturbances and hostile acts, the first ContinentalCongress of the different colonies met in Philadelphia, September, 1774, and issued a petition to the king, an address to the people of GreatBritain, and an address to the Colonies, thus making a last effort forconciliation. The British Government, obstinately refusing to listen toits own wisest counsellors, replied with restraining acts, forbiddingparticipation in the fisheries and other remunerative sea-work. Moreover, it declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion; inconsequence of which the whole province prepared for war. At the sametime the colonial legislatures promptly approved and agreed to sustainthe acts of the Continental Congress. Nor did they neglect to appointcommittees of safety for calling out minute men and committees ofsupplies for arming and provisioning them. General Gage, the Britishmilitary commander in Massachusetts, attempted to destroy thecollection of ammunition and stores at Concord, and in consequence, onApril 19, 1775, the battle of Lexington was fought, followed in June bythat of Bunker Hill. 

Thus began the American Revolution, which ended in the independence ofthe thirteen Colonies and their federal union as States under a commonconstitution. 

As the empire of the Union expanded, as power grew, as opportunitiesincreased, so did obstructions arise and complications multiply. Butwhat I have called "the American idea"--which I conceive to be _Libertyunder Law_--has proved equal to all emergencies. The marvellous successwith which American institutions have provided for the development ofthe Anglo-Saxon idea of individual independence, without endangering thecommon weal and rule, has been largely due to the arising of great andwise administrators of the public will. 

It is to a consideration of some of the chief of these notable men whohave guided the fortunes of the American people from the Revolutionaryperiod to the close of the Civil War, that I invite the attention of thereader in the next two volumes. Those who have not materially modifiedthe condition of public affairs I omit to discuss at large, eminent ashave been their talents and services. Consequently I pass by theadministrations of all the presidents since Jefferson, except those ofJackson and Lincoln, the former having made a new departure in nationalpolicy, and the latter having brought to a conclusion a great war. Iconsider that Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Webster, and Calhoun did morethan any of the presidents, except those I have mentioned, to affect thedestinies of the country, and therefore I could not omit them. 

There will necessarily be some repetitions of fact in discussing therelations of different men to the same group of events, but this hasbeen so far as possible avoided. And since my aim is the portrayal ofcharacter and influence, rather than the narration of historical annals, I have omitted vast numbers of interesting details, selecting only thoseof salient and vital importance. 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. 

1706-1790. 

DIPLOMACY. 

At the commencement of the Revolutionary War, the most prominent andinfluential man in the colonies was perhaps Benjamin Franklin, thensixty-nine years of age. Certainly it cannot be doubted that he was oneof the most illustrious founders of the American Republic. Among thegreat statesmen of the period, his fame is second only to that ofWashington. 

I will not dwell on his early life, since that part of his history isbetter known than that of any other of our great men, from the charmingautobiography which he began to write but never cared to finish. He wasborn in Boston, January 17, 1706, the youngest but two of seventeenchildren. His father was a narrow-minded English Puritan, butrespectable and conscientious, --a tallow-chandler by trade; and hisancestors for several generations had been blacksmiths in the littlevillage of Ecton in Northamptonshire, England. He was a precocious boy, not over-promising from a moral and religious point of view, butinordinately fond of reading such books as were accessible, especiallythose of a sceptical character. He had no sympathy with the theologicaldoctrines then in vogue in his native town. At eight years of age he wassent to a grammar school, and at ten he was taken from it to assist hisfather in soap-boiling; but, showing a repugnance to this sort ofbusiness, he was apprenticed to his brother James at the age of twelve, to learn the art, or trade, of a printer. At fifteen we find him writinganonymously, for his brother's newspaper which had just been started, anarticle which gave offence to the provincial government, and led to aquarrel with his brother, who, it seems, was harsh and tyrannical. 

Boston at this time was a flourishing town of probably about tenthousand or twelve thousand people, governed practically by theCalvinistic ministers, and composed chiefly of merchants, fishermen, andship-carpenters, yet all tolerably versed in the rudiments of educationand in theological speculations. The young Benjamin, having no likingfor the opinions, manners, and customs of this strait-laced town, or forhis cold and overbearing brother, concluded in his seventeenth year torun away from his apprenticeship. He found himself in a few days in NewYork, without money, or friends, or employment. The printers' trade wasnot so flourishing in the Dutch capital as in the Yankee one he hadleft, and he wandered on to Philadelphia, the largest town in thecolonies, whose inhabitants were chiefly Quakers, --thrifty, prosperous, tolerant, and kind-hearted. Fortunately, there were severalprinting-presses in this settlement; and after a while, through thekindness of a stranger, --who took an interest in him and pitied hisforlorn condition, wandering up and down Market Street, poorlydressed, and with a halfpenny roll in his hand, or who was attractedby his bright and honest face, frank manners, and expressiveutterances, --Franklin got work, with small wages. His industry andability soon enabled him to make a better appearance, and attractfriends by his uncommon social qualities. 

It does not appear that Franklin was particularly frugal as a young man. He spent his money lavishly in convivial entertainments, of which he wasthe life, among his humble companions, a favorite not only with them, but with all the girls whose acquaintance he made. So remarkable was hefor wit, good nature, and intelligence that at the age of eighteen heattracted the notice of the governor of the province, who promised toset him up in business, and encouraged him to go England to purchasetypes and a printing-press. But before he sailed, having earned moneyenough to buy a fine suit of clothes and a watch, he visited his oldhome, and paraded his success with indiscreet ostentation, much to thedisgust of his brother to whom he had been apprenticed. 

On the young man's return to Philadelphia, the governor, Sir WilliamKeith, gave him letters to some influential people in England, withpromises of pecuniary aid, which, however, he never kept; so that whenFranklin arrived in London he found himself without money or friends. But he was not discouraged. He soon found employment as a printer andretrieved his fortunes, leading a gay life, and spending his money, asfast as he earned it, at theatres and in social enjoyments with booncompanions of doubtful respectability. Disgusted with London, ordisappointed in his expectations, he returned to Philadelphia in 1726 asa mercantile clerk for a Mr. Durham, who shortly after died; andFranklin resumed his old employment with his former employer, Keimer, the printer. 

On his long voyage home he had had time for reflection, and resolved toturn over a new leaf, and become more frugal and respectable. He wouldnot give up his social pleasures, but would stick to his business, andemploy his leisure time in profitable reading. This, Mr. Parton callshis "regeneration. " Others might view it as the completion of "sowinghis wild oats. " He certainly made himself very useful to the oldvisionary Keimer, who printed banknotes for New Jersey, by makingimprovements on the copper plate; but he soon left this employment andset up for himself, in partnership with another young man. 

The young printers started fairly, and hired the lower part of a housein Market Street, most of which they sublet. Their first job broughtthem but five shillings. Soon after, they were employed to print avoluminous history of the Quakers, at a very small profit; but the workwas so well done that it led to a great increase of business. 

The idea then occurred to Franklin to print a newspaper, there being butone in the colony, and that miserably dull. His old employer Keimer, hearing of his purpose accidentally, stole the march on him, and starteda newspaper on his own account, but was soon obliged to sell out toFranklin and Meredith, not being able to manage the undertaking. "ThePennsylvania Gazette" proved a great success, and was remarkable for itsbrilliant and original articles, which brought the editor, then buttwenty-three years old, into immediate notice. He had become frugal andindustrious, but had not as yet renounced his hilarious habits, andcould scarcely be called moral, for about this time a son was born tohim of a woman whose name was never publicly known. This son waseducated by Franklin, and became in later years the royal governor ofNew Jersey. 

Franklin was unfortunate in his business partner, who fell into drinkinghabits, so that he was obliged to dissolve the partnership. Inconnection with his printing-office, he opened a small stationer's-shop, and sold blanks, paper, ink, and pedler's wares. His business increasedso much that he took an apprentice, and hired a journeyman from London. He now gave up fishing and shooting, and convivial habits, and devotedhimself to money-making; but not exclusively, since at this time heorganized a club of twelve members, called the "Junto, "--a sort ofdebating and reading society. This club contrived to purchase aboutfifty books, which were lent round, and formed the nucleus of acirculating library, which grew into the famous Franklin Library, one ofthe prominent institutions of Philadelphia. In 1730, at the age oftwenty-four, he married Deborah Reid, a pretty, kind-hearted, and frugalwoman, with whom he lived happily for forty-four years. She was a truehelpmeet, who stitched his pamphlets, folded his newspapers, waited oncustomers at the shop, and nursed and tended his illegitimate child. 

After his marriage Franklin gave up what bad habits he had acquired, though he never lost his enjoyment of society. He was what used to becalled "a good liver, " and took but little exercise, thus laying thefoundation for gout, a disease which tormented him in the decline oflife. He also somewhat amended his religious creed, and avowed hisbelief in a superintending Providence and his own moral accountabilityto God, discharging conscientiously the duties to be logically deducedfrom these beliefs, --submission to the Divine will, and kindly acts tohis neighbors. He was benevolent, sincere, and just in his dealings, abhorring deceit, flattery, falsehood, injustice, and all dishonesty. 

From this time Franklin rapidly gained in public esteem for hisintegrity, his sagacity, and his unrivalled good sense. His humor, wit, and conversational ability caused his society to be universally sought. He was a good judge of books for his infant library, and he took a greatinterest in everything connected with education. He was the life of hisliterary club, and made reading fashionable among the Quakers, whocomposed the leading citizens of the town, --a people tolerant butnarrow, frugal but appreciative of things good to eat, kind-hearted butnot remarkable for generosity, except to the poor of their owndenomination, law-abiding but not progressive, modest and unassuming butconscious and conceited, as most self-educated people are. It is awonder that a self-educated man like Franklin was so broad and liberalin all his views, --an impersonation of good nature and catholicity, everopen to new convictions, and respectful of opinions he did not share, provoking mirth and jollity, yet never disturbing the placidity of asocial gathering by irritating sarcasm. 

Franklin's newspaper gave him prodigious influence, both social andpolitical, in the infancy of journalism. It was universally admitted tobe the best in the country. Its circulation rapidly increased, and itwas well managed financially. James Parton tells us that Franklin"originated the modern system of business advertising. " His essays, or articles, as we now call them, had great point, vivacity, andwit, and soon became famous; they thus prepared the way for hisalmanac, --originally entitled "Richard Saunders, " and selling forfive-pence. The sayings of "Poor Richard" in this little publicationcombined more wisdom and good sense in a brief compass than any otherbook published in America during the eighteenth century. It reached thefiresides of almost every hamlet in the colonies. The New Englanddivines thought them deficient in spirituality, rather worldly in theirform, and useful only in helping people to get on in their dailypursuits. But the eighteenth century was not a spiritual age, incomparison with the age which preceded it, either in Europe or America. The acute and exhaustive treatises of the seventeenth century on God, on"fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute, " on the foundation ofmorals, on consciousness as a guide in metaphysical speculation, hadlost much of their prestige, if Jonathan Edwards' immortal deductionsmay be considered an exception. Prosperity and wars and adventures hadmade men material, and political themes had more charm than theologicaldiscussion. Pascal had given place to Hobbes and Voltaire, and Hooker toPaley. In such a state of society, "Poor Richard, " inculcating thriftand economy, in English as plain and lucid as that of Cobbetthalf-a-century later, had an immense popularity. For twenty-five years, it annually made its way into nearly every household in the land. Such aproverbial philosophy as "Honesty is the best policy, " "Necessity nevermade a good bargain, " "Fish and visitors smell in three days, " "Godheals, and the doctors take the fees, " "Keep your eyes open beforemarriage, and half-shut afterwards, " "To bear other people'safflictions, every one has courage enough and to spare, "--savored of ablended irony and cynicism exceedingly attractive to men of the worldand wise old women, even in New England parishes, whatever Calvinisticministers might say of the "higher life. " The sale of the almanac wasgreater than that of the "Pilgrim's Progress, " and the wealth ofFranklin stood out in marked contrast with the poverty of Bunyan acentury before. 

The business enterprise of the gifted publisher at this time was a mostnoticeable thing. He began to import books from England and to printanything that had money in it, --from political tracts to popular poems, from the sermons of Wesley to the essays of Cicero. He made no mistakesas to the popular taste. He became rich because he was sagacious, and anoracle because he was rich as well as because he was wise. Everybodyasked his advice, and his replies were alike courteous and witty, although sometimes ironical. "Friend Franklin, " said a noted Quakerlawyer, "thou knowest everything, --canst thou tell me how I am topreserve my small beer in the back yard? for I find that my neighborsare tapping it for me. " "Put a barrel of Madeira beside it, " repliedthe sage. 

In 1736 Franklin was elected clerk of the General Assembly, --a positionwhich brought more business than honor or emolument. It secured hisacquaintance with prominent men, many of whom became his friends; for itwas one of his gifts to win hearts. It also made him acquainted withpublic affairs. Its chief advantage, however, was that it gave him thepublic printing. His appointment in 1737 as postmaster in Philadelphiaserved much the same purposes. With increase of business, the result ofindustry and good work, and of influence based on character, he was, when but thirty years old, one of the most prominent citizens ofPhiladelphia. His success as a business man was settled. He had the bestprinting jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware. Noone could compete with him successfully. He inspired confidence while heenlarged his friendships, to which he was never indifferent. Whatever hetouched turned to gold. His almanac was a mine of wealth; the sermons heprinted, and the school-books he manufactured, sold equally well. Withconstantly increasing prosperity, he kept a level head, and lived withsimplicity over his shop, --most business men lived over their shops, inboth England and America at that period. He got up early in the morning, worked nine or ten hours a day, spent his evenings in reading and study, and went to bed at ten, finding time to keep up his Latin, and toacquire French, Spanish, and Italian, to make social visits, and playchess, of which game he was extravagantly fond till he was eighty yearsold. His income, from business and investments, was not far from tenthousand dollars a year, --a large sum in those days, when there was nota millionaire in the whole country, except perhaps among the Virginiaplanters. Franklin was not ambitious to acquire a large fortune; heonly desired a competency on which he might withdraw to the pursuit ofhigher ends than printing books. He had the profound conviction thatgreat attainments in science or literature required easy and independentcircumstances. It is indeed possible for genius to surmount anyobstacles, but how few men have reached fame as philosophers orhistorians or even poets without leisure and freedom from pecuniarycares! I cannot recall a great history that has been written by a poorman in any age or country, unless he had a pension, or office of somekind, involving duties more or less nominal, which gave him both leisureand his daily bread, --like Hume as a librarian in Edinburgh, or Neanderas a professor in Berlin. 

Franklin, after twenty years of assiduous business and fortunateinvestments, was able to retire on an income of about four thousanddollars a year, which in those times was a comfortable independenceanywhere. He retired with the universal respect of the community both asa business man and a man of culture. Thus far his career was notextraordinary, not differing much from that of thousands of others inthe mercantile history of this country, or any other country. Byindustry, sagacity, and thrift he had simply surmounted the necessity ofwork, and had so improved his leisure hours by reading and study as tobe on an intellectual equality with anybody in the most populous andwealthy city in the country. Had he died before 1747 his name probablywould not have descended to our times. He would have had only a localreputation as a philanthropical, intelligent, and successful businessman, a printer by trade, who could both write and talk well, but was notable to make a better speech on a public occasion than many others whohad no pretension to fame. 

But a new career was opened to Franklin with the attainment of leisureand independence, --the career of a scientific investigator. The subjectwhich most interested him was electricity, just then exciting greatinterest in Europe. In 1746 he attended in Boston a lecture onelectricity by Dr. Spence, of Scotland, which induced him to makeexperiments himself, the result of which was to demonstrate to his mindthe identity of the electrical current with lightning. What the new, mysterious power was, of course he could not tell, nor could any oneelse. All he knew was that sparks, under certain conditions, wereemitted from clothing, furs, amber, jet, glass, sealing-wax, and othersubstances when excited by friction, and that the power thus producingthe electric sparks would repel and attract. That amber, when rubbed, possesses the property of attracting and repelling light bodies wasknown to Thales and Pliny, and subsequent philosophers discovered thatother substances also were capable of electrical excitation. In processof time Otto Guericke added to these simple discoveries that of electriclight, still further established by Isaac Newton, with his glass globe. A Dutch philosopher at Leyden, having observed that excited electricssoon lost their electricity in the open air, especially when the air wasfull of moisture, conceived the idea that the electricity of bodiesmight be retained by surrounding them with bodies which did not conductit; and in 1745 the Leyden jar was invented, which led to the knowledgethat the force of electricity could be extended through an indefinitecircuit. The French savants conveyed the electric current through acircuit of twelve thousand feet. 

It belonged to Franklin, however, to raise the knowledge of electricityto the dignity of a science. By a series of experiments, extending from1747 to 1760, he established the fact that electricity is not created byfriction, but merely collected from its state of diffusion through othermatter to which it has been attracted. He showed further that all thephenomena produced by electricity had their counterparts in lightning. As it was obvious that thunder clouds contained an immense quantity ofthe electrical element, he devised a means to draw it from the clouds byrods erected on elevated buildings. As this was not sufficientlydemonstrative he succeeded at length in drawing the lightning from theclouds by means of a kite and silken string, so as to ignite spirits andother combustible substances by an electric spark similar to those froma Leyden jar. To utilize his discovery of the identity of lightning withelectricity he erected lightning-rods to protect buildings, that is, toconvey the lightning from the overhanging clouds through conductors tothe ground. The importance of these lightning-rods was doubtlessexaggerated. It is now thought by high scientific authorities that talltrees around a house are safer conductors in a thunder storm thanmetallic rods; but his invention was universally prized most highly formore than one hundred years, and his various further experiments andresearches raised his fame as a philosopher throughout Europe. His housewas a museum of electrical apparatus, and he became the foremostelectrician in the world. His essays on the subject were collected andprinted abroad, and translated into several languages, and among thescientists and philosophers of Europe he was the best known American ofhis time; while at home both Harvard and Yale Colleges conferred on thisself-educated printers-apprentice the degree of Master of Arts. 

The inquiring mind of Franklin did not rest with experiments in theheavens. As a wealthy and independent citizen of Philadelphia heinterested himself in all matters of public improvement. He founded aphilosophical society to spread useful knowledge of all kinds. He laidthe foundation of what is now the University of Pennsylvania, andsecured a charter from George II. ; but he had little sympathy with theteaching of dead languages, attaching much more importance to theknowledge of French and Spanish than of Latin and Greek. We see in allhis public improvements the utilitarian spirit which has marked thegenius of this country, but a spirit directed into philanthropicchannels. Hence he secured funds to build a hospital, which has growninto one of the largest in the United States. He established the firstfire company in Philadelphia, as well as the first fire insurancecompany; he induced the citizens of Philadelphia to pave and sweep theirstreets, which were almost impassable in rainy weather; he reorganizedthe night-watch of the town; he improved the street-lighting; he was thetrustee of a society to aid German immigrants; he started a volunteermilitary organization for defence of the State against the Indians; hemade a new fertilizer for the use of farmers; he invented the open"Franklin stove" to save heat and remedy the intolerable smoky chimneyswhich the large flues of the time made very common; he introduced intoPennsylvania the culture of the vine; in short, he was always on thealert to improve the material condition of the people. Nor did heneglect their intellectual improvement, inciting them to the formationof debating societies, and founding libraries. His intent, however, wasavowedly utilitarian, to "supply the vulgar wants of mankind, " which heplaced above any form of spiritual philosophy, --inculcating always theworldly expediency of good character and the poor economy of vice. Herein he agreed with Macaulay's idea of progress as brought out in hisessay on Lord Bacon. He never soared beyond this theory in his views oflife and duty. The Puritanic idea of spiritual loftiness he neverreached and never appreciated. 

But it was not as a public-spirited citizen, nor as a successful man ofbusiness, nor even as a scientific investigator, that Franklin earnedhis permanent fame. In each of these respects he has been surpassed bymen of whom little is known. These activities might have elevated himinto notice and distinction, but would not have made him an immortalbenefactor to his country. It was his services as a diplomatist and apolitical oracle, united with his patriotism and wisdom, that gave tohim his extraordinary prominence in American history. 

It should be remarked, however, that before his diplomatic career began, Franklin had become exceptionally familiar with the affairs of theColonies. We have already noted his appointment as postmaster ofPhiladelphia in 1737. This experience led to his employment by thePostmaster-General of the Colonies in regulating the accounts of thatwidely extended department, and to Franklin's appointment in 1753 to thehead of it, which greatly increased his specific knowledge of men andaffairs throughout the whole land. Besides this, he had gained somepolitical experience as a member of the provincial General Assembly, ofwhich he had been clerk for twenty years, and thus was well acquaintedwith public men and measures. The Assembly consisted of only fortymembers, who were in constant antagonism with the governor, JamesHamilton, whom the Penns, the Proprietaries of the province, hadappointed to look after their interests. This official was anarrow-minded, intriguing Englishman, while the sons of William Pennthemselves were selfish and grasping men, living in England, far distantfrom their possessions, and regarding themselves simply as Englishlandlords of a vast estate. Under the royal charter granted by CharlesII. To William Penn, his heirs exacted £30, 000 yearly from the farmersas rent for their lands, --more than they could afford to pay. But when, in 1756, at the beginning of the Seven Years' War, French and Indianhostilities put the whole province in jeopardy, and it became necessaryfor the Provincial Legislature to tax the whole population for thecommon defence, the governor thought that the estates of theProprietaries should be exempted from this just tax. Hence a collisionbetween the legislature and the governor. 

The Quakers themselves, in accordance with their peace principles, wereopposed to any war tax, but Franklin induced the Assembly to raise sixtythousand pounds to support the war, then conducted by General Braddock, while he himself secured a large number of wagons for the use of thearmy across the wilderness. 

Meanwhile the Assembly was involved in fresh disputes with the governor. Although the Assembly taxed the Proprietaries but a small proportion forthe defence of their own possessions, the governor was unwilling to payeven this small amount; which so disgusted Franklin that he lost hisusual placidity and poured out such a volley of angry remonstrances thatthe governor resigned. His successor fared no better with the angrylegislature, and it became necessary to send some one to England to laythe grievances of the Colonists before the government, and to obtainrelief from Parliament. 

The fittest man for this business was Franklin, and he was sent as agentof the Province of Pennsylvania to London, the Assembly granting fifteenhundred pounds to pay his expenses, which, with his own private income, enabled him to live in good style in London and set up a carriage. Heheld no high diplomatic rank as yet, but was simply an accreditedbusiness agent of the Province, which position, however, secured to himan entrance into society to a limited extent, and many valuableacquaintances. The brothers Penn, with whom his business was chieflyconcerned, were cold and haughty, and evaded the matter in dispute withmiserable quibbles. Franklin then resolved to appeal to the Lords ofTrade, who had the management of the American colonial affairs, and alsoto the King's Privy Council. 

This was in 1757, when William Pitt was at the height of his power andfame, cold, reserved, proud, but intensely patriotic, before whom evenGeorge III. Was ill at ease, while his associates in the Cabinet weresimply his clerks, and servilely bent before his imperious will. To thisgreat man Franklin had failed to gain access, not so much from theminister's disdain of the colonial agent, as from his engrossing caresand duties. He had no time, indeed, for anybody, not even the peers ofthe realm, --no time for pleasure or relaxation, --being devoted entirelyto public interests of the greatest magnitude; for on his shouldersrested the government of the kingdom. What was the paltry dispute of afew hundred pounds in a distant colony to the Prime Minister ofEngland! All that Franklin could secure was an interview with the greatman's secretaries, and they did little to help him. 

But the time of the active-minded American was not wasted. He wrote forthe newspapers; he prosecuted his scientific inquiries; he becameintimate with many eminent men, chiefly scientists, --members of theRoyal Society like Priestley and Price, professors of political economylike Adam Smith, historians like Hume and Robertson, original thinkerslike Burke, liberal-minded lawyers like Pratt. It does not seem that heknew Dr. Johnson, and probably he did not care to make the acquaintanceof that overbearing Tory and literary dogmatist, who had little sympathywith American troubles. Indeed his political associates among the greatwere few, unless they were patrons of science, who appreciated hisattainments in a field comparatively new. Among these men he seems tohave been much respected, and his merits secured an honorary degree fromSt. Andrew's. His eminent social qualities favored his introduction intoa society more cultivated than fashionable, and he was known as ascientific rather than a political celebrity. 

His mission, then, was up-hill work. The Penns stood upon theirprerogatives, and the Lords of the Committee for Plantations wereunfriendly or dilatory. It was nearly three years before they gavetheir decision, and this was adverse to the Pennsylvania Assembly. ThePrivy Council, however, to whom the persistent agent appealed, composedof the great dignitaries of the realm, decided that the proprietaryestates of the Penns should contribute their proportion of the publicrevenue. On this decision, Franklin, feeling that he had accomplishedall that was possible, returned home in 1762, little more than a yearafter the accession of George III. Through the kindness of Lord Bute, the king's favorite, Franklin also secured the appointment of his son tothe government of New Jersey. This appointment created some scandal, andthe Penns rolled up their eyes, not at the nepotism of Franklin, butbecause he had procured the advancement of his illegitimate son. 

Franklin, during his absence of more than five years, had been regularlyre-elected a member of the Assembly, and he was received on his returnwith every possible public and private attention. He had hoped now forleisure to pursue his scientific investigations, and had accordinglytaken a new and larger house. But before long new political troublesarose between the governor of Pennsylvania and the legislature, and whatwas still more ominous, troubles in New England respecting the taxationof the Colonies by the British government, at the head of which wasGrenville, an able man but not far-sighted, who in March, 1764, announced his intention of introducing into Parliament the bill known asthe Stamp Act. 

To this famous bill there was not great opposition, since a largemajority of the House of Commons believed in the right of taxing theColonies. Lord Camden, a great lawyer, took different views. Burke andPitt admitted the right of taxation, but thought its enforcementinexpedient, as likely to alienate the Colonies and make them enemiesinstead of loyal subjects. 

At this crisis appeared in America a group of orators who at oncearoused and intensified the prevailing discontents by their inflammatoryspeeches, in much the same manner that Wendell Phillips and Wm. LloydGarrison, seventy years later, aroused public sentiment in reference toslavery. James Otis, the lawyer from Barnstable on the shores of CapeCod, who had opposed the Writs of Assistance, "led the van of thesepatriots, --an impassioned orator, incapable of cold calculation, nowfoaming with rage, and then desponding, not steadfast in conduct, yet byflashes of sagacity lighting the people along their perilous ways, combining legal learning with speculative opinion. " He eloquentlymaintained that "there is no foundation for distinction between externaland internal taxes; that the imposition of taxes in the Colonies whetheron trade, on land, or houses, or floating property, is absolutelyirreconcilable with the rights of the Colonists as British subjects oras men, and that Acts of Parliament against the fundamental principlesof the British Constitution are void. "

More influential, and more consistent than Otis, was Samuel Adams, alawyer of Boston, a member of the Massachusetts Assembly, at that timeabout forty years of age, a political agitator, a Puritan of thestrictest creed, poor and indifferent to money, an incarnation of zealfor liberty, a believer in original, inherent rights which no Parliamentcan nullify, --a man of the keenest political sagacity in management, andof almost unlimited influence in Massachusetts from his long and notableservices in town-meeting, Colonial Assembly, as writer in the journalsof the day, and actor in every public crisis. Eleven years younger thanhe, was his cousin John Adams, a lawyer in Quincy, the leadingpolitician of the colony, able and ambitious, patriotic and honest, butirascible and jealous, of whom I shall have more to say hereafter. Ofabout the same age as John Adams was Patrick Henry, of Virginia, a bornorator, but of limited education. He espoused the American cause withextraordinary zeal, and as in the matter of the Virginia tax law, wasvehement in opposition to the Stamp Act, as an unconstitutional statute, which the Colonies were not bound to obey. Christopher Gadsden, of So. Carolina, too, was early among the prominent orators who incitedopposition to the Stamp Act and other oppressive measures. 

These men were the great pioneers of American Independence, by theirceaseless agitation of popular rights, and violent opposition to Englishschemes of taxation. They were not, indeed, the equals of Franklin, thenthe agent of Pennsylvania in London. They had not his catholicity, hisbreadth of knowledge, his reputation, or his genius; but they werenevertheless foremost among American political orators, and had greatlocal influence. 

The first overt act of hostility on the part of the English governmentin coercing the Colonies was to send to Boston, the seat ofdisaffection, a large body of soldiers. In 1768 there were fourregiments of British troops in Boston, doubtless with the view ofintimidation, and to enforce the collection of duties. 

The English did not overrate the bravery of their troops or theabilities of their generals, but they did underrate the difficulties inconquering a population scattered over a vast extent of territory. Theydid not take into consideration the protecting power of nature, theimpenetrable forests to be traversed, the mighty rivers to be crossed, the mountains to be climbed, and the coasts to be controlled. Nor didthey comprehend the universal spirit of resistance in a vast country, and the power of sudden growth in a passion for national independence. They might take cities and occupy strong fortifications, but the greatmass of the people were safe on their inland farms and in theiruntrodden forests. The Americans may not have been unconquerable, butEnglish troops were not numerous enough to overwhelm them in theirscattered settlements. It would not pay to send army after army to belost in swamps or drowned in rivers or ambushed and destroyedin forests. 

It was in the earlier stages of the revolt against taxation, in theautumn of 1764, that Benjamin Franklin was again sent to England torepresent the province of Pennsylvania in the difficulties which hung asa dark cloud over the whole land. He had done well as a financial agent;he might do still better as a diplomatist, since he was patient, prudent, sagacious, intelligent, and accustomed to society, besideshaving extraordinary knowledge of all phases of American affairs. And heprobably was sincere in his desire for reconciliation with themother-country, which he still deemed possible. He was no politicalenthusiast like Samuel Adams, desirous of cutting loose entirely fromEngland, but a wise and sensible man, who was willing to wait forinevitable developments; intensely patriotic, but armed with the weaponsof reason, and trusting in these alone until reconciliation shouldbecome impossible. 

As soon as Franklin arrived in England he set about his difficult taskto reason with infatuated ministers, and with all influential persons sofar as he had opportunity. But such were the prevailing prejudicesagainst the Colonists, and such was the bitterness of men in power thathe was not courteously treated. He was even grossly insulted before thePrivy Council by the Solicitor-General, Wedderburn, --one of thosebrowbeating lawyers so common in England one hundred years ago, who madeup in insolence what was lacking in legal ability. Grenville, thepremier, was civil but stubborn, and attempted to show that there was nodifference between the external, indirect taxation by duties onimportations, and the direct, internal taxation proposed by the StampAct, --both being alike justifiable. 

In March, 1765, the bill was passed by an immense majority. Then blazedforth indignation from every part of America, and the resolute Colonistsset themselves to nullify the tax laws by refraining from all taxabletransactions. 

Franklin, undismayed, sedulously went about working for a repeal of theodious stamp law, and at length got a hearing at the bar of the House ofCommons, where he was extensively and exhaustively examined uponAmerican affairs. In this famous examination he won respect for thelucidity of his statements and his conciliatory address. It soon becameevident that the Stamp Act could not be enforced. No one could becompelled to buy stamps or pay tariff taxes if he preferred to withdrawfrom all business transactions, wear homespun, do without Britishmanufactures, and even refrain from eating lamb that flocks of sheepmight be increased and the wool used for homespun cloth. 

It was in March, 1766, that Franklin, after many months of shrewd, wise, and extraordinarily skilful work with tongue and pen and socialinfluence, had the satisfaction of seeing the Stamp Act repealed byParliament and the bill signed by the unwilling king. Although he was atall possible disadvantage, as being merely the insignificant agent ofdistant and despised Colonists, his influence in the matter cannot beexaggerated. He made powerful friends and allies, and never failed tosupply them with ample ammunition with which to fight their ownpolitical battles in which his cause was involved. 

On the repeal of the Stamp Act, Grenville was compelled to resign, andhis place was taken by Lord North, an amiable but narrow-minded man, utterly incapable of settling the pending difficulties. Lord Shelburne, a friend of the Colonies, of which he had the charge, was superseded byLord Hillsborough, an Irish peer of great obstinacy, who treatedFranklin very roughly, and of whom the king himself soon tired. LordDartmouth, who succeeded him, might have arranged the difficulties hadhe not been hampered by the king, who was inflexibly bent on taxation insome form, and on pursuing impolitic measures, against the exhortationsof Chatham, Barré, Conway, Camden, and other far-reading statesmen, whoforesaw what the end would be. 

Meantime, in 1770, Franklin was appointed agent also for MassachusettsBay, and about the same time for New Jersey and Georgia. Schemes forcolonial taxation were rife, and, although the Stamp Act had beenwithdrawn as impracticable, the principle involved was not given up bythe English government nor accepted by the American people. Franklin waskept busy. 

In 1773 Franklin was further impeded in his negotiations by mischievousletters which Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts had written to theColonial office. This governor was an able man, a New Englander bybirth, but an inveterate Tory, always at issue with the legislature, whose acts he had the power to veto. Indiscreetly, rather thanmaliciously, he represented the prevailing discontents in the worstlight, and considerably increased the irritation of the Englishgovernment. Franklin in some way got possession of these inflammatoryletters, and transmitted a copy to a leading member of theMassachusetts General Court, as a matter of information, but with theunderstanding that it should be kept secret. It leaked out however, ofcourse, and the letters were printed. A storm of indignation inMassachusetts resulted in a petition for the removal of GovernorHutchinson and Lieutenant-Governor Oliver, which was sent by the Houseof Representatives to Franklin for presentation to the government;while, on the other hand, a torrent of obloquy overwhelmed thediplomatist in England, who was thought to have stolen the letters, although there was no evidence to convict him. 

Franklin's situation in London now became uncomfortable; he was deprivedof his office of deputy Postmaster-General of the Colonies, which he hadheld since 1753, was virtually discredited, and generally snubbed. Hispresentation of the petition afforded an opportunity for his beingpublicly insulted at the hearing appointed before the Committee forPlantation Affairs, while the press denounced him as a fomenter ofsedition. His work in England was done, and although he remained theresome time longer, on the chance of still being of possible use, hegladly availed himself of an opportunity, early in 1775, to return toAmerica. Before his departure, however, Lord Chatham had come to hisrescue when he was one day attacked with bitterness in the House ofLords, and pronounced upon him this splendid eulogium: "If, " said thegreat statesman, "I were prime minister and had the care of settlingthis momentous business, I should not be ashamed to call to myassistance a person so well acquainted with American affairs, --one whomall Europe ranks with our Boyles and Newtons, as an honor, not to theEnglish nation only, but to human nature itself. "

From this time, 1775, no one accused Franklin of partiality to England. He was wounded and disgusted, and he now clearly saw that there could beno reconciliation between the mother-country and the Colonies, --thatdifferences could be settled only by the last appeal of nations. TheEnglish government took the same view, and resorted to coercion, littledreaming of the difficulties of the task. This is not the place torehearse those coercive measures, or to describe the burst of patrioticenthusiasm which swept over the Colonies to meet the issue by the sword. We must occupy ourselves with Franklin. 

On his return to Philadelphia, at the age of sixty-nine, he was mostcordially welcomed. His many labors were fully appreciated, and he wasimmediately chosen a member of the second Continental Congress, whichmet on the 10th of May, 1775. He was put on the most importantcommittees, and elected Postmaster-General. He was also selected as oneof the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. It does notappear that he was one of the foremost speakers. He was no orator, buthis influence was greater than that of any other one man in theCongress. He entered heart and soul into the life-and-death strugglewhich drew upon it the eyes of the whole civilized world. He wastireless in committee work; he made long journeys on the business of theCongress, --to Montreal, to Boston, to New York; he spent the summer of1776 as chairman of the first Constitutional Convention of the State ofPennsylvania: on every hand his resources were in demand and werelavishly given. 

It was universally felt at the beginning of the struggle that unless theColonies should receive material aid from France, the issue of theconflict with the greatest naval and military power in Europe could notsucceed. Congress had no money, no credit, and but scanty militarystores. The Continental troops were poorly armed, clothed, and fed. Franklin's cool head, his knowledge, his sagacity, his wisdom, and hispatriotism marked him out as the fittest man to present the cause inEurope, and in September, 1776, he was sent to France as an envoy tonegotiate a treaty of amity and commerce between France and the UnitedStates. With him were joined Arthur Lee and Silas Deane, the latterhaving been sent some months previously in a less formal way, to securethe loan of money, ammunition, and troops. 

It is not to be supposed that the French monarchy had any deep sympathywith the Americans in their struggle for independence. Only a few yearshad elapsed since the Colonies had fought with England against France, to her intense humiliation. Canada had been by their help wrenched fromher hands. But France hated England, and was jealous of her powers, andwould do anything to cripple that traditionary enemy. Secret andmysterious overtures had been made to Congress which led it to hope forassistance. And yet the government of France could do nothing openly, for fear of giving umbrage to her rival, since the two powers were atpeace, and both were weary of hostilities. Both were equally exhaustedby the Seven Years' War. Moreover, the king, Louis XV. , sought above allthings repose and pleasure. It was a most unpropitious time for theColonies to seek for aid, when the policy of the French government waspacific, and when Turgot was obliged to exert his financial genius tothe utmost to keep the machine of government in running order. 

Under these circumstances the greatest prudence, circumspection, andtact were required of a financial and diplomatic agent sent to squeezemoney from the French treasury. If aid were granted at all it must bedone covertly, without exciting even the suspicions of the Englishemissaries at Paris. But hatred of England prevailed over the desire ofpeace, and money was promised. There were then in France manydistinguished men who sympathized with the American cause, while theyoung king himself seems to have had no decided opinions aboutthe matter. 

The philosophy of Rousseau had permeated even aristocratic circles. There was a charm in the dogma that all men were "created equal. " Itpleased sentimental philosophers and sympathetic women. I wonder why theking, then absolute, did not see its logical consequences. Surely therewere rumblings in the political atmosphere to which he could not bedeaf, and yet with inconceivable apathy and levity the blinded monarchpursued his pleasures, and remarked to his courtiers that the stormwould not burst in his time: _Après moi, le déluge_. 

Turgot, the ablest man in France, would have stood aloof; but Turgot hadbeen dismissed, and the Count de Vergennes was at the helm, a man whoseruling passion was hatred of England. If he could help the Colonies hewould, provided he could do it secretly. So he made use of a fortunateadventurer, originally a watchmaker, by the name of Beaumarchais who setup for a merchant, through whom supplies were sent to America, --allpaid for, however, out of the royal exchequer. The name, even, of thissupposed mercantile house was fictitious. A million of livres weretransmitted through this firm to America, apparently for businesspurposes, Silas Deane of Connecticut, the first agent of the Americans, alone being acquainted with the secret. He could not keep it, however, but imparted it to a friend, who was a British spy. In consequence, mostof the ships of Hortalez & Co. , loaded with military stores, were lockedup by technical governmental formalities in French ports, while theAmerican vessels bearing tobacco and indigo in exchange also failed toappear. The firm was in danger of bankruptcy, while Lord Stormont, theBritish ambassador, complained to Vergennes of the shipment ofcontraband goods, --an offence against the law of nations. 

Amid the embarrassments which Deane had brought about by hisindiscretion, Franklin arrived at Paris; but he wisely left Deane todisentangle the affairs of the supposed mercantile house, until thisunfortunate agent was recalled by Congress, --a broken-down man, who soonafter died in England, poor and dishonored. Deane had also embarrassedFranklin, and still more the military authorities at home, by theindiscriminate letters of commendation he gave to impecunious andincapable German and French officers as being qualified to serve in theAmerican army. 

Probably no American ever was hailed in Paris with more _éclat_ thanBenjamin Franklin. His scientific discoveries, his cause invested withromantic interest, his courtly manners, his agreeable conversation, andhis reputation for wisdom and wit, made him an immediate favorite amongall classes with whom he came in contact. He was universally regarded asthe apostle of liberty and the impersonation of philosophy. Not wishingto be too conspicuous, and dreading interruptions to his time, he tookup his residence at Passy, a suburb of Paris, where he lived mostcomfortably, keeping a carriage and entertaining at dinner numerousguests. He had a beautiful garden, in which he delighted to show hisexperiments to distinguished people. His face always wore a placid andbenignant expression. He had no enemies, and many friends. His societywas particularly sought by fashionable ladies and eminent savants. Whileaffable and courteous, he was not given to flattery. He was plain andstraightforward in all he said and did, thus presenting a strikingcontrast to diplomatists generally. Indeed, he was a universal favorite, which John Adams, when he came to be associated with him, could notunderstand. Adams was sent to France in 1778 to replace Silas Deane, andwhile there was always jealous of Franklin's ascendency in society andin the management of American affairs. He even complained that the elderenvoy was extravagant in his mode of living. In truth, Franklin alonehad the ear of the Count de Vergennes, through whom all Americanbusiness was transacted, which exceedingly nettled the intense, confident, and industrious Adams, whose vanity was excessive. 

I need not dwell on the embarrassments of Franklin in raising money forthe American cause. There was no general confidence in its success amongEuropean bankers or statesman. The French government feared tocompromise itself. Many of the remittances already sent had beenintercepted by British cruisers. The English minister at Paris stormedand threatened. The news from America was almost appalling, for theBritish troops had driven Washington from New York and Long Island, andhe appeared to be scarcely more than a fugitive in New Jersey, with onlythree or four thousand half-starved and half-frozen followers. A forceof ten thousand men had been recently ordered to America under GeneralBurgoyne. Almost discouraged, the envoys applied for loans to the Dutchbankers and to Spain, but without success. 

It was not until December, 1777, when the news arrived in France of thesurrender of General Burgoyne and his army to the Americans atSaratoga, New York, in October, that Franklin had any encouragement. Not until it was seen that the conquest of America was hopeless did theFrench government really come to the aid of the struggling cause, andthen privately. Spain joined with France in offers of assistance; but asshe had immense treasures on the ocean liable to capture, the matter wasto be kept secret. When secrecy was no longer possible a commercialtreaty was made between the United States and the allies, February 6, 1778, but was not signed until Arthur Lee, of Virginia, one of thecommissioners, had made a good deal of mischief by his captiousopposition to Franklin, whom he envied and hated. The treaty becomingknown to the English government in a few days, Lord North, who sawbreakers ahead, was now anxious for conciliation with America. It wastoo late. There could be no conciliation short of the acknowledgment ofAmerican independence, and a renewal of war between France and Englandbecame certain. If the conquest of the United States had beenimprobable, it now had become impossible, with both France and Spain astheir allies. But the English government, with stubborn malignity, persevered in the hopeless warfare. 

After the recall of Silas Deane, the business of the embassy devolvedchiefly on Franklin, who, indeed, within a year was appointed soleminister, Adams and Lee being relieved. Besides his continuous andexhausting labors in procuring money for Congress at home, and fornearly all of its representatives abroad, Franklin was always effectingsome good thing for his country. He especially commended to the Americanauthorities the Marquis de La Fayette, then a mere youth, who hadoffered to give his personal services to the conflict for liberty. Thisgenerous and enthusiastic nobleman was a great accession to the Americancause, from both a political and a military point of view, and alwaysretained the friendship and confidence of Washington. Franklin renderedimportant services in securing the amelioration of the condition ofAmerican prisoners in England, who theretofore had been treated withgreat brutality; after years of patient and untiring effort, he so wellsucceeded that they were now honorably exchanged according to the rulesof war. Among the episodes of this period largely due to Franklin'ssagacity and monetary aid, was the gallant career of John Paul Jones, aScotchman by birth, who had entered the American navy as lieutenant, andin one short cruise had taken sixteen British prizes, --the first man tohoist the "Stars and Stripes" on a national vessel. He was also thefirst to humble the pride of England in its sorest point, since, withunparalleled audacity, he had successfully penetrated to the harbor ofthe town in which he was born. The "Bon Homme Richard, " a large frigateof forty guns, of which, by the aid of Franklin, Jones secured thecommand, and which he named in honor of "Poor Richard" of the almanac, made his name famous throughout both Europe and America. 

The turning-point of the American War was the surrender of Burgoyne, which brought money and men and open aid from France; the decisive eventwas the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, October 19, 1781, to Washington, commanding the allied French and American forces, with the aid of theFrench fleet. Although the war was still continued in a half-heartedway, the Cornwallis disaster convinced England of its hopelessness, andled to negotiations for peace. In these the diplomatic talents ofFranklin eclipsed his financial abilities. And this was the moreremarkable, since he was not trained in the diplomatic school, wheredissimulation was the leading peculiarity. He gained his points byfrank, straightforward lucidity of statement, and marvellous astuteness, combined with an imperturbable command of his temper. The traineddiplomatists of Europe, with their casuistry and lies, found in himtheir match. 

The subjects to be discussed and settled, however, were so vital andimportant that Congress associated with Franklin, John Adams, ministerat the Hague, and John Jay, then accredited to Madrid. Nothing could bemore complicated than the negotiations between the representatives ofthe different powers. First, there was a compact between the UnitedStates and their allies that peace should not be concluded without theircommon consent, and each power had some selfish aim in view. Then, England and France each sought a separate treaty. In England itself weredivided counsels: Fox had France to look after, and Shelburne the UnitedStates; and these rival English statesmen were not on good terms witheach other. In the solution of the many questions that arose, John Jaydisplayed masterly ability. He would take nothing for granted, whileFranklin reposed the utmost confidence in the Count de Vergennes. Jaysoon discovered that the French minister had other interests at heartthan those of America alone, --that he had an eye on a large slice of theterritories of the United States, --that he wanted some substantialadvantage for the ships and men he had furnished. He wanted no spoils, for there were no spoils to divide, but he wanted unexplored territoriesextending to the Mississippi, which Jay had no idea of granting. Therewere other points to which Franklin attached but little importance, butwhich were really essential in the eye of Jay. Among other things theagent of England, a Mr. Oswald, --a man of high character and courteousbearing, --was empowered to treat with the "Thirteen Colonies, " to whichFranklin, eager for peace, saw no objection; but Jay declined to signthe preliminaries of peace unless the independence and sovereignty ofthe "United States" were distinctly acknowledged. At this stage ofnegotiations John Adams, honest but impetuous and irritable, hastenedfrom The Hague to take part in the negotiations. He sided with Jay, andFranklin had to yield, which he did gracefully, probably attaching butsmall importance to the matter in question. What mattered it whether thetriumphant belligerents were called "Colonies" or "States" so long asthey were free? To astute lawyers like Jay and Adams, however, therecognition of the successfully rebellious Colonies as sovereign Stateswas a main point in issue. 

From that time, as Franklin suffered from a severe illness, Jay was thelife of the negotiations, and the credit is generally given to him forthe treaty which followed, and which was hurried through hastily forfear that a change in the British ministry would hazard its success. Itcame near alienating France, however, since it had been distinctlyunderstood that peace should not be made without the consent of all thecontracting powers, and this treaty was made with England alone. Franklin, in the transaction, was the more honest, and Jay themore astute. 

Strictly speaking, all these three commissioners rendered importantservices in their various ways. Franklin's urbanity and frankness, andthe high esteem in which he was held both in France and in England, madeeasy the opening of the negotiations, and he gained a special point inavoiding any agreement of indemnity to American royalists who hadsuffered in person or property during the war, while he maintainedpleasant relations with France when Vergennes was pursuing his selfishpolicy to prevent the United States from becoming too strong, and whenhe became indignant that the treaty had been concluded with Englandirrespective of France. Jay, with keen sagacity, fathomed the schemes ofthe French minister, and persistently refused to sign a treaty of peaceunless it was satisfactory and promised to be permanent and mutuallyadvantageous. Adams was especially acquainted with the fisheriesquestion and its great importance to New England; and he insisted on theright of Americans to fish on the banks of Newfoundland. All threepersisted in the free navigation of the Mississippi, which it was theobject of Spain to prevent. Great Britain, Spain, and France would haveenclosed the United States by territories of their own, and would havemade odious commercial restrictions. By the firmness and sagacity ofthese three diplomatists the United States finally secured all theywanted and more than they expected. The preliminary articles were signedNovember 30, 1782, and the final treaties of peace between England, France, and the United States on September 3, 1783. 

These negotiations at last having been happily concluded, Franklinwished to return home, but he remained, at the request of Congress, toarrange commercial treaties with the various European nations. Reluctantly at last his request to be relieved was granted, and he leftFrance in July, 1785. Thomas Jefferson was appointed to the position. "You replace Dr. Franklin, " said the Count de Vergennes to the newplenipotentiary. "I succeed him, " replied Jefferson; "no one canreplace him. "

Franklin would have been the happiest man in Europe at the conclusion ofpeace negotiations, but for his increasing bodily infirmities, especially the gout, from which at times he suffered excruciatingagonies. He was a universal favorite, admired and honored as one of themost illustrious men living. His house in Paris was the scene ofperpetual hospitalities. Among his visitors were the younger Pitt, Wilberforce, Romilly, and a host of other celebrities, French andEnglish, especially eminent scientific men. He was then seventy-eightyears of age, but retained all the vivacity of youth. His conversationis said to have been as enchanting as it was instructive. His wit andhumor never ceased to flow. His pregnant sentences were received asoracles. He was a member of the French Academy and attended most of itsmeetings. He was a regular correspondent of the most learned societiesof Europe. 

When the time came for him to return home he was too ill to take leaveof the king, or even of the minister of foreign affairs. But Louis XVI, ordered one of the royal litters to convey the venerable sufferer to thecoast, as he could not bear the motion of a carriage. In his litter, swung between two mules, Franklin slowly made his way to Havre, andthence proceeded to Southampton to embark for America. The long voyageagreed with him, and he arrived in Philadelphia in September, inimproved health, after an absence of nine years. No one would havethought him old except in his walk, his feet being tender and swollenwith the gout. His voice was still firm, his cheeks were ruddy, his eyesbright, and his spirits high. 

Settled in his fine house in Market Street, surrounded by hisgrandchildren, and idolatrous neighbors and friends, he was a rareexception to the rule that a prophet is not without honor save in hisown country. He had fortune, friends, fame, and a numerous family whonever disgraced his name. Of all the great actors in the stormy times inwhich he lived, he was one of the most fortunate. He had both geniusand character which the civilized world appreciated, and so prudent hadbeen his early business life and his later investments, that he left afortune of about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, --a great sum toaccumulate in his times. 

The last important service rendered by Franklin to his country was as amember of the memorable convention which gave the Constitution to theAmerican nation in 1787. Of this assembly, in which sat Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Dickinson, Livingstone, Ellsworth, Sherman, and othergreat men, Franklin was the Nestor, in wisdom as well as years. He wastoo feeble to take a conspicuous part in the discussions, but hisopinions and counsel had great weight whenever he spoke, for hisjudgment was never clearer than when he had passed fourscore years. Thebattle of words had to be fought by younger and more vigorous men, ofwhom, perhaps, Madison was the most prominent. At no time of his life, however, was Franklin a great speaker, except in conversation, but hismind was vigorous to the end. 

This fortunate man lived to see the complete triumph of the cause towhich he had devoted his public life. He lived also to see the beginningof the French Revolution, to which his writings had contributed. Helived to see the amazing prosperity of his country when compared withits condition under royal governors. One of his last labors was to writean elaborate address in favor of negro emancipation, and as president ofan abolition society to send a petition to Congress to suppress theslave-trade. A few weeks before his death he replied to a letter ofPresident Stiles of Yale College setting forth his theological belief. Had he been more orthodox, he would have been more extolled by those menwho controlled the religious opinions of his age. 

Franklin died placidly on the 17th of April, 1790, in the eighty-fifthyear of his age, and his body was followed to the grave by most of theprominent citizens of Philadelphia in the presence of twenty thousandspectators. James Madison pronounced his eulogy in Congress, andMirabeau in the French National Assembly, while the most eminentliterary men in both Europe and America published elaborate essays onhis deeds and fame, recognizing the extent of his knowledge, the breadthof his wisdom, his benevolence, his patriotism, and his moral worth. Hemodestly claimed to be only a printer, but who, among the great lightsof his age, with the exception of Washington, has left a nobler record?

AUTHORITIES. 

Mr. James Parton has, I think, written the most interesting andexhaustive life of Franklin, although it is not artistic and is full ofunimportant digressions. Sparks has collected most of his writings, which are rather dull reading. The autobiography of Franklin was neverfinished, --a unique writing, as frank as the "Confessions" of Rousseau. A good biography is the one by Morse, in the series of "AmericanStatesmen" which he is editing. Not a very complimentary view ofFranklin is taken by McMaster, in the series of "American Men ofLetters. " See also Bancroft's "United States. "

GEORGE WASHINGTON

1732-1799

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

One might shrink from writing on such a subject as General Washingtonwere it not desirable to keep his memory and deeds perpetually fresh inthe minds of the people of this great country, of which he is called theFather, --doubtless the most august name in our history, and one of thegrandest in the history of the world. 

Washington was not, like Franklin, of humble origin; neither can hestrictly be classed with those aristocrats who inherited vast landedestates in Virginia during the eighteenth century, and who wereambitious of keeping up the style of living common to wealthy countrygentlemen in England at that time. And yet the biographers of Washingtontrace his family to the knights and squires who held manors by grant ofkings and nobles of England, centuries ago. About the middle of theseventeenth century John and Lawrence Washington, two brothers, of ayounger branch of the family, both Cavaliers who had adhered to thefortunes of Charles I. , emigrated to Virginia, and purchased extensiveestates in Westmoreland County, between the Potomac and the Rappahannockrivers. The grandson of one of these brothers was the father of ourhero, and was the owner of a moderate plantation on Bridges Creek, fromwhich he removed, shortly after the birth of his son, George, in 1732, to an estate in Stafford County, opposite Fredericksburg. 

It was here that the early years of Washington were passed, in sportsand pleasures peculiar to the sons of planters. His education was notentirely neglected, but beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, hisyouthful attainments were small. In general knowledge he was far behindthe sons of wealthy farmers in New England at that time, --certainly farbehind Franklin when a mere apprentice to a printer. But he wrote afair, neat, legible hand, and kept accounts with accuracy. Hishalf-brother Lawrence had married a relative of Lord Fairfax, who hadsettled in Virginia on the restoration of Charles II. Lawrence was alsothe owner of the estate of Mount Vernon, on the Potomac, --the wealthiestmember of his family, and a prominent member of the Virginia House ofBurgesses. Through this fortunate brother, George became intimate withthe best families in Virginia. His associates were gentlemen ofposition, with whom he hunted and feasted, and with whose sisters hedanced, it is said, with uncommon grace. 

In person, young Washington was tall, --over six feet and twoinches, --his manners easy and dignified, his countenance urbane andintelligent, his health perfect, his habits temperate, his moralsirreproachable, and his sentiments lofty. He was a model in all athleticexercises and all manly sports, --strong, muscular, and inured toexposure and fatigue. He was quick and impetuous in temper, a tendencywhich he early learned to control. He was sullied with none of the vicesthen so common with the sons of planters, and his character extortedadmiration and esteem. 

Such a young man of course became a favorite in society. His most markedpeculiarities were good sense and the faculty of seeing things as theyare without exaggeration. He was truthful, practical, straight-forward, and conscientious, with an uncommon insight into men, and a power ofinspiring confidence. I do not read that he was brilliant inconversation, although he had a keen relish for the charms of society, or that he was in any sense learned or original. He had not thequalities to shine as an orator, or a lawyer, or a literary man; neitherin any of the learned professions would he have sunk below mediocrity, being industrious, clear-headed, sagacious, and able to avail himselfof the labors and merits of others. As his letters show, he became athoroughly well-informed man. In surveying, farming, stock-raising, andmilitary matters he read the best authorities, often sending to Londonfor them. He steadily fitted himself for his life as a country gentlemanof Virginia, and doubtless aspired to sit in the House of Burgesses. Henever claimed to be a genius, and was always modest and unassuming, withall his self-respect and natural dignity. 

In the middle of the eighteenth century the cultivation of tobacco, towhich the wealth and enterprise of Virginia were directed, was not aslucrative as it had been, and among the planters, aristocratic as theywere in sentiments and habits, there were many who found it difficult tomake two ends meet, and some, however disdainful of manual labor, werecompelled to be as economical and saving as New England farmers. Theirsons found it necessary to enter the learned professions or become menof business, since they could not all own plantations. Washington, whosefamily was neither rich nor poor, prepared himself for the work of asurveyor, for which he was admirably fitted, by his hardihood, enterprise, and industry. 

Lord Fairfax, who had become greatly interested in the youth and hadmade him a frequent companion, giving him the inestimable advantage offamiliar intercourse with a thoroughbred gentleman of variedaccomplishments, in 1748 sent this sixteen-year-old lad to survey hisvast estates in the unexplored lands at the base of the AlleghanyMountains. During this rough expedition young Washington was exposed tothe hostilities of unfriendly Indians and the fatigues and hardships ofthe primeval wilderness; but his work was thoroughly and accuratelyperformed, and his courage, boldness, and fidelity attracted the noticeof men of influence and rank. Through the influence of his friend LordFairfax he was appointed a public surveyor, and for three years hesteadfastly pursued this laborious profession. 

A voyage to Barbadoes in 1751 cultivated his habits of clearobservation, and in 1752 his brother's death imposed on him theresponsibility of the estates and the daughter left to his care by hisbrother Lawrence. 

Young Washington had already, through the influence of his brother, beenappointed major and adjutant-general of one of the military districts ofVirginia. The depredations of the French and Indians on the border hadgrown into dangerous aggression, and in 1753 Major Washington was sentas a commissioner through the wilderness to the French headquarters inOhio, to remonstrate. His admirable conduct on this occasion resulted inhis appointment as lieutenant-colonel of the Virginia regiment of sixcompanies sent to the Ohio frontier; and in this campaign Washingtongained new laurels, surprising and defeating the French. His native andacquired powers and his varied experience in Indian warfare now markedhim out as a suitable aide to the British General Braddock, who, earlyin 1755, arrived with two regiments of English soldiers to operateagainst the French and Indians. This was the beginning of the memorableSeven Years' War. 

Washington was now a young man of twenty-three, full of manly vigor andthe spirit of adventure, brave as a lion, --a natural fighter, butprudent and far-seeing. He fortunately and almost alone escaped beingwounded in the disastrous campaign which the British general lostthrough his own obstinacy and self-confidence, by taking no advice fromthose used to Indian warfare. Braddock insisted upon fighting foesconcealed behind trees, as if he were in the open field. After theEnglish general's inglorious defeat and death, Washington continued inactive service as commander of the Virginia forces for two years, untiltoil, exposure, and hardship produced an illness which compelled him towithdraw for several months from active service. When at the close ofthe war he returned to private life, Colonel Washington had won a nameas the most efficient commander in the whole conflict, displayingmarvellous resources in the constant perils to which he was exposed. Among his exploits was the capture of Port Duquesne, now Pittsburgh, in1758, which terminated the French domination of the Ohio, and opened upWestern Pennsylvania to enterprising immigrants. For his rare servicesthis young man of twenty-six received the thanks of the House ofBurgesses, of which he had been elected a member at the close of thewar. When he entered that body to take his place, the welcome extendedto him was so overwhelming that he stood silent and abashed. But thevenerable Speaker of the House exclaimed, "Sit down, Mr. Washington;your modesty equals your valor, and that surpasses the power of anylanguage I possess. "

Meanwhile, Mount Vernon, a domain which extended ten miles along thePotomac River, fell into Washington's possession by the death of hisbrother Lawrence's daughter, which made him one of the richest plantersin Virginia. And his fortunes were still further advanced by hismarriage in 1759 with the richest woman in the region, Martha, the widowof Daniel Parke Custis. This lady esteemed his character as much asKadijah revered Mohammed, to say nothing of her admiration for his manlybeauty and military renown. His style of life as the lord of MountVernon was almost baronial. He had a chariot and four, with blackpostilions in livery, for the use of his wife, while he himself alwaysappeared on horseback, the finest rider in Virginia. His house wasfilled with aristocratic visitors. He had his stud of the highest breed, his fox hounds, and all the luxuries of a prosperous country gentleman. His kitchens, his smoke-houses, his stables, his stewards, histobacco-sheds, his fields of wheat and corn, his hundred cows, his vastpoultry-yards, his barges, all indicated great wealth, and that generoushospitality which is now a tradition. His time was passed in overseeinghis large estate, and in out-of-door sports, following the hounds orfishing, exchanging visits with prominent Virginia families, amusinghimself with card-playing, dancing, and the social frivolities of theday. But he neglected no serious affairs; his farm, his stock, the saleof his produce, were all admirably conducted and on a plane of widelyrecognized honor and integrity. He took great interest in the State atlarge, explored on foot the Dismal Swamp and projected its draining, made several expeditions up the Potomac and over the mountains, layingout routes for new roads to the Ohio country, gained much influence inthe House of Burgesses, and was among the foremost in discussingprivately and publicly the relations of the Colonies with theMother Country. 

Thus nine years were passed, in luxury, in friendship, and in thepleasures of a happy, useful life. What a contrast this life was tothat of Samuel Adams in Boston at the same time, --a man too poor to keepa single servant, or to appear in a decent suit of clothes, yet all thewhile the leader of the Massachusetts bar and legislature and the mostbrilliant orator in the land!

When the Stamp Act was passed by the infatuated Parliament of GreatBritain, Washington was probably the richest man in the country, but aspatriotic as Patrick Henry. He deprecated a resort to arms, and desireda reconciliation with England, but was ready to abandon his luxuriouslife, and buckle on his sword in defence of American liberties. As amember of the first general Congress, although no orator, his voice washeard in favor of freedom at any loss or hazard. He was chairman of theCommittee on Military Affairs, and did much to organize the defensiveoperations set on foot. When the battle of Lexington was fought, and itbecame clear that only the sword could settle the difficulties, Washington, at the nomination of John Adams in the Second Congress, wasunanimously chosen commander-in-chief of the American armies. With frankacknowledgment of a doubt whether his abilities and experience wereequal to the great trust, and yet without reluctance, he accepted thehigh and responsible command, pledging the exertion of all his powers, under Providence, to lead the country through its trials anddifficulties. He declined all pay for his services, asking only thatCongress would discharge his expenses, of which he would "keep an exactaccount. " And this he did, to the penny. 

Doubtless, no man in the Colonies was better fitted for this exaltedpost. His wealth, his military experience, his social position, hispolitical influence, and his stainless character, exciting venerationwithout envy, marked out Washington as the leader of the Americanforces. On the whole, he was the foremost man in all the land for thework to be done. In his youth he had been dashing, adventurous, andcourageous almost to rashness; but when the vast responsibilities ofgeneral-in-chief in a life-and-death struggle weighed upon his mind hischaracter seemed to be modified, and he became cautious, reticent, prudent, distant, and exceedingly dignified. He allowed no familiarityfrom the most beloved of his friends and the most faithful of hisgenerals. He stood out apart from men, cold and reserved in manner, though capable of the warmest affections. He seemed conscious of hismission and its obligations, resolved to act from the severest sense ofduty, fearless of praise or blame, though not indifferent to either. Hehad no jealousy of his subordinates. He selected, so far as he wasallowed by Congress, the best men for their particular duties, and withalmost unerring instinct. So far as he had confidants, they wereGreene, the ablest of his generals, and Hamilton, the wisest of hiscounsellors, --ostensibly his aide-de-camp, but in reality his privatesecretary, the officer to whom all great men in high position areobliged to confide their political secrets. 

Washington was "the embodiment of both virtue and power" in the eyes ofhis countrymen, who gave him their confidence, and never took it back inthe darkest days of their calamities. On the whole, in spite of calumnyand envy, no benefactor was ever more fully trusted, --supremelyfortunate even amid gloom and public duties. This confidence he stroveto merit, as his highest reward. 

Such was Washington when, at the age of forty-three, he arrived atCambridge in Massachusetts, to take command of the American army, a fewdays after the battle of Bunker Hill, on the 17th June, 1775. 

Although the English had been final victors at Bunker Hill, the Americanmilitia, behind their intrenchments, under Prescott, had repulsed twicetheir number of the best soldiers of Europe, and retired at last onlyfor want of ammunition. Washington was far from being discouraged by thedefeat. His question and comment show his feeling: "Did the militiafight? Then the liberties of the country are safe. " It was his first aimto expel the enemy from Boston, where they were practically surroundedby the hastily collected militia of New England, full of enthusiasm andconfidence in the triumph of their cause. But these forces had beeninjudiciously placed; they were not properly intrenched; they wereimperfectly supplied with arms, ammunition, military stores, uniforms, and everything necessary for an army. There was no commissarydepartment, nor was any department provided with adequate resources. Thesoldiers were inexperienced, raw sons of farmers and mechanics, led byofficers who knew but little of scientific warfare, and numbered lessthan fifteen thousand effective men. They were undisciplined and full ofsectional jealousies, electing, for the most part, their own officers, who were too dependent upon their favor to enforce discipline. 

Washington's first task, therefore, was to bring order out of confusion;to change the disposition of the forces; to have their positionsadequately fortified; to effect military discipline, and subordinationof men to their officers; to cultivate a large and general patriotism, which should override all distinctions between the Colonies. This workwent on rapidly; but the lack of supplies became distressing. At theclose of July the men had but nine rounds of ammunition each, and morewas nowhere to be procured. It was necessary to send messengers intoalmost every town to beg for powder, and there were few mills in thecountry to manufacture it. 

As the winter approached a new trouble appeared. The brief enlistmentterms of many of the men were expiring, and, wearied and discouraged, without proper food or clothing, these men withdrew from the army, andthe regiments rapidly decreased in numbers. Recruiting and re-enlistingin the face of such conditions became almost impossible; yetWashington's steady persistence, his letters to Congress, his masterlyhold on the siege of the British in Boston, his appeals for men andammunition, were actually successful. His army was kept up by new andrenewed material. Privateers, sent out by him upon the sea, securedvaluable supplies. Henry Knox, a Boston bookseller, whom he had madecolonel of artillery and despatched to New York and Ticonderoga, returned to the camps with heavy cannon and ammunition. 

The right wing of the American army was stationed at Roxbury, underGeneral Artemas Ward, and the left wing, under Major-General Charles Leeand Brigadier-Generals Greene and Sullivan, at Prospect Hill. Theheadquarters of Washington were in the centre, at Cambridge, withGenerals Putnam and Heath. Lee was not allied with the great Virginiafamily of that name. He was an Englishman by birth, somewhat of amilitary adventurer. Conceited, vain, and disobedient, he afterwardscame near wrecking the cause which he had ambitiously embraced. Ward wasa native of Massachusetts, a worthy man, but not distinguished formilitary capacity. Putnam was a gallant hero, taken from the plough, butmore fitted to head small expeditions than for patient labor in siegeoperations, or for commanding a great body of troops. 

Meanwhile the British troops, some fifteen thousand veterans, hadremained inactive in Boston, under Sir William Howe, who had succeededGage, unwilling or unable to disperse the militia who surrounded them, or to prevent the fortification of point after point about the city bythe Americans. It became difficult to get provisions. The land side wascut off by the American forces, and the supply-ships from the sea wereoften wrecked or captured by Washington's privateers. At length theBritish began to think of evacuating Boston and going to a moreimportant point, since they had ships and the control of the harbor. Noprogress had been made thus far in the conquest of New England, for itwas thought unwise to penetrate into the interior with the forces atcommand, against the army of Washington with a devoted population tofurnish him provisions. Howe could undoubtedly have held the New Englandcapital, but it was not a great strategic point. What was it to occupya city at the extreme end of the continent, when the British governmentexpected to hear that the whole country was overrun? At last Washingtonfelt strong enough to use his eight months' preparations for a suddenblow. He seized the heights commanding the city and his intention becameevident. The active movements of the Americans towards an attackprecipitated Howe's half-formed plan for evacuating the city, and in asingle day he and his army sailed away, on March 17, 1776. 

Washington made no effort to prevent the embarkation of the Britishtroops, since it freed New England, not again to be the theatre ofmilitary operations during the war. It was something to deliver the mostpopulous part of the country from English domination and drive asuperior army out of Massachusetts. The wonder is that the disciplinedtroops under the British generals, with guns and ammunition and ships, should not have dispersed in a few weeks the foes they affected todespise. But Washington had fought the long battle of patience andsagacity until he was ready to strike. Then by one bold, sudden move heheld the enemy at his mercy. Howe was out-generalled, and the Americanremained master of the field. Washington had accomplished his errand inNew England. He received the thanks of the Congress, and with hislittle army proceeded to New York, where matters urgently demandedattention. 

To my mind the most encouraging part of the Revolutionary struggle, until the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, was that period of eightmonths when the British were cooped up in Boston, surrounded by theAmericans, who had plenty of provisions even if they were deficient inmilitary stores; when the Yankees were stimulated to enthusiasm by everyinfluence which could be brought to bear upon them by their families, atno great distance from the seat of war, and when no great calamity hadas yet overtaken them. 

But here everything like success for two years disappeared, and a gloomycloud hung over the land, portentous of disasters and dismay. Evilsthickened, entirely unexpected, which brought out what was greatest inthe character and genius of Washington; for he now was the mainstay ofhope. The first patriotic gush of enthusiasm had passed away. War, underthe most favorable circumstances, is no play; but under greatdifficulties, has a dismal and rugged look before which delusionsrapidly disappear. England was preparing new and much larger forces. Shewas vexed, but not discouraged, having unlimited resources forwar, --money, credit, and military experience. She proceeded to hire theservices of seventeen thousand Hessian and other German troops. AllEurope looked upon the contest as hopeless on the part of a scatteredpopulation, without credit, or money, or military stores, or a settledarmy, or experienced generals, or a central power. Washington saw onevery hand dissensions, jealousies, abortive attempts to raise men, aCongress without power and without prestige, State legislaturesinefficient and timid, desertions without number and without redress, men returning to their farms either disgusted or feeling that there wasno longer a pressing need of their services. 

There were, moreover, jealousies among his generals, and suppressedhostility to him, as an aristocrat, a slaveholder, and an Episcopalian. 

As soon as Boston was evacuated General Howe sailed for Halifax, to meethis brother, Admiral Howe, with reinforcements for New York. Washingtondivined his purpose and made all haste. When he reached New York, on the13th of April, he found even greater difficulties to contend with thanhad annoyed him in Boston: raw troops, undisciplined and undrilled, ahostile Tory population, conspiracies to take his life, sectionaljealousies, --and always a divided Congress, and the want of experiencedgenerals. There was nothing of that inspiring enthusiasm which animatedthe New England farmers after the battle of Bunker Hill. 

Washington held New York, and the British fleet were masters of the Bay. He might have withdrawn his forces in safety, but so important a placecould not be abandoned without a struggle. Therefore, although he hadbut eight thousand effective men, he fortified as well as he could theheights on Manhattan Island, to the north, and on Long Island, to thesouth and east, and held his place. 

Meantime Washington was laboring to strengthen his army, to suppress themischievous powers of the Tories, to procure the establishment byCongress of a War Office and some permanent army organization, to quietjealousies among his troops, and to provide for their wants. In June, Sir William Howe arrived in New York harbor and landed forces on StatenIsland, his brother the admiral being not far behind. News of disasterfrom a bold but futile expedition to Canada in the North, and of thecoming from the South of Sir Henry Clinton, beaten off from Charleston, made the clouds thicken, when on July 2 the Congress resolved that"these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free andindependent States, " and on July 4 adopted the formal Declaration ofIndependence, --an immense relief to the heart and mind of Washington, and one which he joyfully proclaimed to his army. 

Even then, however, and although his forces had been reinforced tofifteen thousand serviceable troops and five thousand of raw militia, there was reason to fear that the British, with their thirty-fivethousand men and strong naval force, would surround and capture thewhole American array. At last they did outflank the American forces onLong Island, and, pouring in upon them a vastly superior force, defeatedthem with great slaughter. 

While the British waited at night for their ships to come up, Washingtonwith admirable quickness seized the single chance of escape, and undercover of a fog withdrew his nine thousand men from Long Island andlanded them in New York once more. 

This retreat of Washington, when he was to all appearances in the powerof the English generals, was masterly. In two short weeks thereafter theBritish had sent ships and troops up both the Hudson and East rivers, and New York was no longer tenable to Washington. He made his way up theHarlem River, where he was joined by Putnam, who also had contrived toescape with four thousand men, and strongly intrenched himself atKing's Bridge. 

Washington waited a few days at Harlem Plains planning a descent on LongIsland, and resolved on making a desperate stand. Meanwhile Howe, in hisships, passed the forts on the Hudson and landed at Throg's Neck, onthe Sound, with a view of attacking the American intrenchments in therear and cutting them off from New England. A brief delay on Howe's partenabled Washington to withdraw to a still stronger position on thehills; whereupon Howe retired to Dobbs' Ferry, unable to entrap with hislarger forces the wary Washington, but having now the complete commandof the lower Hudson, There were, however, two strong fortresses on the Hudson which Congresswas anxious to retain at any cost, a few miles above New York, --FortWashington, on Manhattan Island, and Fort Lee, on the New Jersey side ofthe river. These forts Howe resolved to capture. The commander-in-chiefwas in favor of evacuating them, but Greene, who commanded at FortWashington, thought he was strong enough to defend it. He made a nobledefence, but was overwhelmed by vastly superior forces and was compelledto surrender it, with more than two thousand men. And, as LordCornwallis with six thousand men then crossed the Hudson, Washingtonrapidly retreated into New Jersey with a dispirited army, that includedthe little garrison of Fort Lee which had escaped in safety; and eventhis small army was fast becoming smaller, from expiring enlistments andother causes. General Lee, with a considerable division at North Castle, N. J. , was ordered to rejoin his commander, but, apparently fromambition for independent command, disobeyed the order. From that momentWashington distrusted Lee, who henceforth was his _bête noir_, whofoiled his plans and was jealous of his ascendency. Lee's obstinacy waspunished by his being overtaken and captured by the enemy. 

Then followed a most gloomy period. We see Washington, with only theshadow of an army, compelled to retreat southward in New Jersey, hotlypursued by the well-equipped British, --almost a fugitive, like Davidfleeing from the hand of Saul. He dared not risk an engagement againstgreatly superior forces in pursuit, triumphant and confident of success, while his followers were half-clad, without shoes, hungry, homesick, andforlorn. So confident was Howe of crushing the only army opposed to him, that he neglected opportunities and made mistakes. At last the remnantof Lee's troops, commanded by Sullivan and Gates, joined Washington; buteven with this reinforcement, giving him barely three thousand men, hecould not face the enemy, more than double the number of hisinexperienced soldiers. The only thing to do was to put the Delawarebetween himself and Howe's army. But it was already winter, and theDelaware was full of ice. Cornwallis, a general of great ability, feltsure that the dispirited men who still adhered to Washington could notpossibly escape him; so he lingered in his march, --a fatal confidence, for, when he arrived at the Delaware, Washington was already safelyencamped on the opposite bank; nor could he pursue, since all the boatson the river for seventy miles were either destroyed or in the hands ofWashington. This successful retreat from the Hudson over the Delawarewas another exhibition of high military qualities, --caution, quickperception, and prompt action. 

Washington had now the nucleus of an army and could not be dislodged bythe enemy, whose force was only about double his own. Howe wasapparently satisfied with driving the American forces out of New Jersey, and, retaining his hold at certain points, sent the bulk of his armyback to New York. 

The aim of Washington was now to expel the British troops from NewJersey. It was almost a forlorn hope, but he never despaired. Hiscondition was not more hopeless than that of William the Silent when heencountered the overwhelming armies of Spain. Always beaten, the heroicPrince of Orange still held out when Holland was completely overrun. Butthe United States were not overrun. New England was practically safe, although the British held Newport; and all the country south of theDelaware was free from them. The perplexities and discouragements ofWashington were great indeed, while he stubbornly held the field with abeggarly makeshift for an army and sturdily continued his appeals toCongress and to the country for men, arms, and clothing; yet only NewYork City and New Jersey were really in the possession of the enemy. Itwas one thing for England to occupy a few cities, and quite another toconquer a continent; hence Congress and the leaders of the rebellionnever lost hope. So long as there were men left in peaceable possessionof their farms from Maine to Georgia, and these men accustomed tofire-arms and resolved on freedom, there was no real cause of despair. The perplexing and discouraging things were that the men preferred thesafety and comfort of their homes to the dangers and hardships of thecamp, and that there was no money in the treasury to pay the troops, norcredit on which to raise it. Hence desertions, raggedness, discontent, suffering; but not despair, --even in the breast of Washington, whorealized the difficulties as none else did. Men would not enlist unlessthey were paid and fed, clothed and properly armed. Had there been anoverwhelming danger they probably would have rallied, as the Dutch didwhen they opened their dikes, or as the Greeks rallied in their lateRevolution, when fortress after fortress fell into the hands of theTurks, and as the American militia did in successive localitiesthreatened by the British, --notably in New Hampshire, Vermont, and NewYork, when they swarmed about Burgoyne and captured him at Saratoga. Butthis was by no means the same as enlisting for a long period in ageneral army. 

I mention these things, not to discredit the bravery and patriotism ofthe Revolutionary soldiers. They made noble sacrifices and they foughtgallantly, but they did not rise above local patriotism and sustain theContinental cause. Yet at no time, even when Washington with his smallarmy was flying before Cornwallis across New Jersey, were there groundsof despair. There were discouragements, difficulties, and vexations; andthese could be traced chiefly to the want of a strong centralgovernment. The government was divided against itself, without money orcredit, --in short, a mere advisory board of civilians, half the timeopposed to the plans of the commander-in-chief. But when Washington hadbeen driven beyond the Delaware, when Philadelphia, where Congress wassitting, was in danger, then dictatorial powers were virtually conferredon Washington, --"the most unlimited authority" was the phrase used, --andhe had scope to act as he saw fit. 

Washington was, it is true, at times accused of incompetency, andtraitors slandered him, but Congress stood by him and the country hadconfidence in him; as well it might, since, while he had not gainedgreat victories, and even perhaps had made military mistakes, he haddelivered Boston, had rescued the remnant of his army from the clutchesof Howe and Cornwallis, and had devoted himself by day and night tolabors which should never have been demanded of him, in keeping Congressup to the mark, as well as in his arduous duties in the field, --evincinggreat prudence, sagacity, watchfulness, and energy. He had provedhimself at least to be a Fabius, if he was not a Hannibal. But aHannibal is not possible without an army, and a steady-handed Fabius wasthe need of the times. The Caesars of the world are few, and most ofthem have been unfaithful to their trust, but no one doubted theintegrity and patriotism of Washington. Rival generals may have dislikedhis austere dignity and proud self-consciousness, but the people and thesoldiers adored him; and while his general policy was, and had to be, adefensive one, everybody knew that he would fight if he had any hope ofsuccess. No one in the army was braver than he, as proved not only byhis early warfare against the French and Indians, but also by his wholecareer after he was selected for the chief command, whenever a fairfighting opportunity was presented, as seen in the following instance. 

With his small army on the right bank of the Delaware, toilsomelyincreased to about four thousand men, he now meditated offensiveoperations against the unsuspecting British, who had but just chased himout of New Jersey. Accordingly, with unexpected audacity, on Christmasnight he recrossed the Delaware, marched nine miles and attacked theBritish troops posted at Trenton. It was not a formal battle, but araid, and proved successful. The enemy, amazed, retreated; then withfresh reinforcements they turned upon Washington; he evaded them, and onJanuary 3, 1777, made a fierce attack on their lines at Princeton, attended with the same success, utterly routing the British. These weresmall victories, but they encouraged the troops, aroused the New Jerseymen to enthusiasm, and alarmed Cornwallis, who retreated northward toNew Brunswick, to save his military stores. In a few days the Englishretained only that town, Amboy, and Paulus Hook, in all New Jersey. Thusin three weeks, in the midst of winter, Washington had won two fights, taken two thousand prisoners, and was as strong as he was before hecrossed the Hudson, --and the winter of 1777 opened with hope in theRevolutionary ranks. 

Washington then intrenched himself at Morristown and watched the forcesof the English generals; and for six months nothing of consequence wasdone by either side. It became evident that Washington could not beconquered except by large reinforcements to the army of Howe. Anothercampaign was a necessity, to the disgust and humiliation of the Britishgovernment and the wrath of George III. The Declaration of Independence, thus far, had not proved mere rhetoric. 

The expulsion of the British troops from New Jersey by inferior forceswas regarded in Europe as a great achievement, and enabled Franklin atParis to secure substantial but at first secret aid from the FrenchGovernment. National independence now seemed to be a probability, andperhaps a certainty. It was undoubtedly a great encouragement to thestruggling States. The more foresighted of British statesmen saw now thehopelessness of a conflict which had lasted nearly two years, and inwhich nothing more substantial had been gained by the English generalsthan the occupation of New York and a few towns on the coast, while theAmericans had gained military experience and considerable prestige. Thewhole civilized world pronounced Washington to be both a hero anda patriot. 

But the English government, with singular obstinacy, under the lash ofGeorge III. , resolved to make renewed efforts, to send to America allthe forces which could be raised, at a vast expense, and to plan acampaign which should bring the rebels to obedience. The plan was tosend an army by way of Canada to take the fortresses on Lake Champlain, and then to descend the Hudson, and co-operate with Howe in cutting offNew England from the rest of the country; in fact, dividing the land intwain, --a plan seemingly feasible. It would be possible to conquer eachsection, east and south of New York, in detail, with victorious andoverwhelming forces. This was the great danger that menaced the Statesand caused the deepest solicitude. 

So soon as the designs of the British government were known, it becamethe aim and duty of the commander-in-chief to guard against them. Themilitary preparations of Congress were utterly inadequate for thecrisis, in spite of the constant and urgent expostulations ofWashington. There was, as yet, 110 regular army, and the militiashamefully deserted. There was even a prejudice against a standing army, and the militia of every State were jealous of the militia of otherStates. Congress passed resolutions, and a large force was created onpaper. Popular enthusiasm was passing away in the absence of immediatedangers; so that, despite the glorious success in New Jersey, the winterof 1777 was passed gloomily, and in the spring new perils arose. But forthe negligence of General Howe, the well-planned British expedition fromthe North might have succeeded. It was under the command of an able andexperienced veteran, General Burgoyne. There was apparently nothing toprevent the junction of the forces of Howe and Burgoyne but the fortressof West Point, which commanded the Hudson River. To oppose this movementBenedict Arnold--"the bravest of the brave, " as he was called, likeMarshal Ney--was selected, assisted by General Schuyler, a high-mindedgentleman and patriot, but as a soldier more respectable than able, andHoratio Gates, a soldier of fortune, who was jealous of Washington, andwho, like Lee, made great pretensions, --both Englishmen by birth. Thespring and summer resulted in many reverses in the North, where Schuylerwas unable to cope with Burgoyne; and had Howe promptly co-operated, that campaign would have been a great triumph for the British. 

It was the object of Howe to deceive Washington, if possible, and hencehe sent a large part of his army on board the fleet at New York, underthe command of Cornwallis, as if Boston were his destination. Heintended, however, to capture Philadelphia, the seat of the "rebelCongress, " with his main force, while other troops were to co-operatewith Burgoyne. Washington, divining the intentions of Howe, with hisragged army crossed the Delaware once more, at the end of July, thistime to protect Philadelphia, leaving Arnold and Schuyler to watchBurgoyne, and Putnam to defend the Hudson. When, late in August, Howelanded his forces below Philadelphia, Washington made up his mind torisk a battle, and chose a good position on the heights near theBrandywine; but in the engagement of September 11 was defeated, throughthe negligence of Sullivan to guard the fords above against theoverwhelming forces of Cornwallis, who was in immediate command. Still, he rallied his army with the view of fighting again. The battle ofGermantown, October 4, resulted in American defeat and the occupation bythe British of Philadelphia, --a place desirable only for comfortablewinter quarters. When Franklin heard of it he coolly remarked that theBritish had not taken Philadelphia, but Philadelphia had taken them, since seventeen thousand veterans were here kept out of the field, whenthey were needed most on the banks of the Hudson, to join Burgoyne, nowon his way to Lake Champlain. 

This diversion of the main army of Howe to occupy Philadelphia was thegreat British blunder of the war. It enabled the Vermont and NewHampshire militia to throw obstacles in the march of Burgoyne, whobecame entangled in the forests of northern New York, with his flank andrear exposed to the sharpshooters of the enemy, fully alive to thedangers which menaced them. Sluggish as they were, and averse toenlistment, the New England troops always rallied when pressingnecessity stared them in the face, and fought with tenacious courage. Although Burgoyne had taken Ticonderoga, on Lake Champlain, as was to beexpected, he was, after a most trying campaign, at last surrounded atSaratoga, and on October 17 was compelled to surrender to the militia hedespised. It was not the generalship of the American commander which ledto this crushing disaster, but the obstacles of nature, utilized by thehardy American volunteers. Gates, who had superseded Schuyler in thecommand of the Northern department, claimed the chief merit of thecapture of the British army, nearly ten thousand strong; but this claimis now generally disputed, and the success of the campaign is ascribedto Arnold, while that of the final fighting and success is given toArnold together with Morgan and his Virginia riflemen, whom Washingtonhad sent from his own small force. 

The moral and political effect of the surrender of Burgoyne was greaterthan the military result. The independence of the United States was nowassured, not only in the minds of American statesmen, but to Europeanintelligence. The French Government then openly came out with itspromised aid, and money was more easily raised. 

The influence of Washington in securing the capture of Burgoyne wasindirect, although the general plan of campaign and the arousing of theNorthern militia had been outlined by him to General Schuyler. He hadhis hands full in watching Howe's forces at Philadelphia. His defeat atGermantown, the result of accident which he could not prevent, compelledhim to retreat to Valley Forge, on the Schuylkill, about nine miles fromPhiladelphia. There he took up his quarters in the winter of 1777-78. The sufferings of the army in that distressing winter are among thebest-known events of the whole war. At Valley Forge the trials ofWashington culminated. His army was reduced to three thousand men, incapable of offensive operations, without suitable clothing, food, or shelter, "As the poor soldiers, " says Fiske, in his brilliant history, "marchedon the 17th of December to their winter quarters, the route could betraced on the snow by the blood which oozed from bare, frost-bittenfeet. For want of blankets many were fain to sit up all night by fires. Cold and hunger daily added to the sick list, and men died for want ofstraw to put between them and the frozen ground. "

Gates, instead of marching to the relief of Washington beforePhiladelphia, as he was ordered, kept his victorious troops idle atSaratoga; and it was only by the extraordinary tact of AlexanderHamilton, the youthful aide, secretary, and counsellor of Washington, who had been sent North for the purpose, that the return of Morgan withhis Virginia riflemen was secured. Congress was shaken by the intriguesof Gates, who sought to supplant the commander-in-chief, and who had wonto his support both Morgan and Richard Henry Lee. 

At this crisis, Baron Steuben, a Prussian officer who had served underFrederic the Great, arrived at the headquarters of Washington. Some saythat he was a mere martinet, but he was exceedingly useful in drillingthe American troops, working from morning till night, both patient andlaborious. From that time Washington had regular troops, on which hecould rely, few in number, but loyal and true. La Fayette also waspresent in his camp, chivalrous and magnanimous, rendering efficientaid; and there too was Nathaniel Greene of Rhode Island, who had madebut one great mistake in his military career, the most able ofWashington's generals. With the aid of these trusted lieutenants, Washington was able to keep his little army together, as the nucleus ofa greater one, and wait for opportunities, for he loved to fight when hesaw a chance of success. 

And now it may be said that the desertions which had crippledWashington, the reluctance to enlist on the part of the farmers, and thetardy response to his calls for money, probably were owing to thegeneral sense of security after the surrender of Burgoyne. It was feltthat the cause of liberty was already won. With this feeling men wereslow to enlist when they were not sure of their pay, and it was at thisperiod that money was most difficult to be raised. Had there been astrong central government, and not a mere league of States, some Moseswould have "smitten the rock of finance, " as Hamilton subsequently did, and Chase in the war of the Southern Rebellion, and abundant streamswould have gushed forth in the shape of national bonds, certain to beredeemed, sooner or later, in solid gold and silver, and which couldhave been readily negotiated by the leading bankers of the world. Thereal difficulty with which Congress and Washington had to contend was afinancial one. There were men enough to enlist in the army if they hadbeen promptly paid. Yet, on the other hand, England, with ample meansand lavish promises, was able to induce only about three thousand Toriesout of all the American population to enlist in her armies in Americaduring the whole war. 

By patience unparalleled and efforts unceasing, Washington slowlywrought upon Congress to sustain him in building up a "Continental"army, in place of the shifting bodies of militia. With Steuben asinspector-general and Greene as quartermaster, the new levies as theycame in were disciplined and equipped; and in spite of the conspiraciesand cabals formed against him by ambitious subordinates, --which enlistedthe aid of many influential men even in Congress, but which came tonought before the solid character and steady front of the man who wasreally carrying the whole war upon his own shoulders, --Washingtonemerged from the frightful winter at Valley Forge and entered the springof 1778 with greater resources at his command than he had everhad before. 

In January, 1778, France acknowledged the independence of the UnitedStates of America and entered into treaty with them. In the spring SirWilliam Howe resigned, and Sir Henry Clinton succeeded him in command. After wintering in Philadelphia, the British commander discovered thathe could do nothing with his troops shut up in a luxurious city, whileWashington was watching him in a strongly intrenched position a fewmiles distant, and with constantly increasing forces now trained to war;and moreover, a French fleet with reinforcements was now looked for. Sohe evacuated the Quaker City on the 18th of June, 1778, and began hismarch to New York, followed by Washington with an army now equal to hisown. On the 28th of June Cornwallis was encamped near Monmouth, N. J. , where was fought the most brilliant battle of the war, which Washingtonnearly lost, nevertheless, by the disobedience of Lee, his second incommand, at a critical moment. Boiling with rage, the commander-in-chiefrode up to Lee and demanded why he had disobeyed orders. Then, it issaid, with a tremendous oath he sent the marplot to the rear, and Lee'smilitary career ignominiously ended. Four years after, this militaryadventurer, who had given so much trouble, died in a mean tavern inPhiladelphia, disgraced, unpitied, and forlorn. 

The battle of Monmouth did not prevent the orderly retreat of theBritish to New York, when Washington resumed his old post at WhitePlains, east of the Hudson in Westchester County, whence he had somehopes of moving on New York, with the aid of the French fleet under theCount d'Estaing. But the big French ships could not cross the bar, sothe fleet sailed for Newport with a view of recapturing that town andrepossessing Rhode Island. Washington sent Greene and La Fayette thitherwith reinforcements for Sullivan, who was in command. The enterprisefailed from an unexpected storm in November, which compelled the Frenchadmiral to sail to Boston to refit, after which he proceeded to the WestIndies. It would appear that the French, thus far, sought to embarrassthe English rather than to assist the Americans. The only good thatresulted from the appearance of D'Estaing at Newport was the withdrawalof the British troops to New York. 

It is singular that the positions of the opposing armies were very muchas they had been two years before. The headquarters of Washington wereat White Plains, on the Hudson, and those of Clinton at New York, commanding the harbor and the neighboring heights. Neither army wasstrong enough for offensive operations with any reasonable hope ofsuccess, and the commanding generals seem to have acted on the maximthat "discretion is the better part of valor. " Both armies had beenstrongly reinforced, and the opposing generals did little else thanfortify their positions and watch each other. A year passed in virtualinaction on both sides, except that the British carried on a series ofdevastating predatory raids in New England along the coast of LongIsland Sound, in New York State (with the savage aid of the Indians), inNew Jersey, and in the South, --there making a more formal movement andseizing the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. No battles of anyaccount were fought. There was some skirmishing, but no importantmilitary movements were made on either side. Washington, in December, 1778, removed his headquarters to Middlebrook, N. J. , his forces beingdistributed in a series of camps from the Delaware north and east toRhode Island. The winter he passed in patient vigilance; he wroteexpostulating letters to Congress, and even went personally toPhiladelphia to labor with its members. Meanwhile Clinton was taking hisease, to the disgust of the British government. 

There was a cavilling, criticising spirit among the different parties inAmerica; for there were many who did not comprehend the situation, andwho were disappointed that nothing decisive was done. Washington wasinfinitely annoyed at the stream of detraction which flowed fromdiscontented officers, and civilians in power, but held his soul inpatience, rarely taking any notice of the innumerable slanders andhostile insinuations. He held together his army, now chiefly composed ofveterans, and nearly as numerous as the troops of the enemy. One thinghe saw clearly, --that the maintenance of an army in the field, heldtogether by discipline, was of more importance, from a military point ofview, than the occupation of a large city or annoying raids ofdestruction. While he was well intrenched in a strong position, andtherefore safe, the British had the command of the Hudson, andships-of-war could ascend the river unmolested as far as West Point, which was still held by the Americans and was impregnable. Outside ofNew York the British did not possess a strong fortress in the country, at least in the interior, except on Lake Champlain, --not one in NewEngland. West Point, therefore, was a great eyesore to the Englishgenerals and admirals. Its possession would be of incalculable advantagein case any expedition was sent to the North. 

And the enemy came very near getting possession of this importantfortress, not by force, but by treachery. Benedict Arnold, disappointedin his military prospects, alienated from his cause, overwhelmed withdebts, and utterly discontented and demoralized, had asked to be orderedfrom Philadelphia and put in command of West Point. He was sent there inAugust, 1780. He was a capable and brave man; he had the confidence ofWashington, in spite of his defects of character, and moreover he hadrendered important services. In an evil hour he lost his head andlistened to the voice of the tempter, and having succeeded in gettinghimself put in charge of the stronghold of the Hudson, he secretlynegotiated with Clinton for its surrender. 

Everybody is familiar with the details of that infamy, which isinexplicable on any other ground than partial insanity. No matter whatmay be said in extenuation, Arnold committed the greatest crime known tocivilized nations. He contrived to escape the just doom which awaitedhim, and, from having become traitor, even proceeded to enter the activeservice of the enemy and to raise his hand against the country which, but for these crimes, would have held him in honorable remembrance. Theheart of English-speaking nations has ever been moved to compassion forthe unfortunate fate of the messenger who conducted the treasonablecorrespondence between Arnold and Clinton, --one of the most accomplishedofficers in the British army, Major André. No influence--not even hisdeeply moved sympathy--could induce Washington to interfere with thedecision of the court-martial that André should be hanged as a spy, sodangerous did the commander deem the attempted treachery. The Englishhave erected to the unfortunate officer a monument in Westminster Abbey. 

The contemplated surrender of West Point to the enemy suggests thedemoralization which the war had already produced, and which wasdeplored by no one more bitterly than by Washington himself. "If I werecalled upon, " he writes, "to draw a picture of the times and of men, from what I have seen, heard, and in part know, I should in one word saythat idleness, dissipation, and extravagance seem to have laid fast holdof most of them; that speculation, peculation, and an insatiable thirstfor riches seem to have got the better of every other consideration. .. ;that party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of theday; whilst the momentous concerns of an empire, an accumulating debt, ruined finances, depreciated money, and want of credit . .. Are butsecondary considerations. "

All war produces naturally and logically this demoralization, especiallyin countries under a republican government. Profanity, drunkenness, andgeneral recklessness as to money matters were everywhere prevailingvices; and this demoralization was, in the eyes of Washington, more tobe dreaded than any external dangers that had thus far caused alarm anddistress. "I have, " wrote he, "seen without despondency even for amoment, the hours which America has styled her gloomy ones; but I havebeheld no day since the commencement of hostilities that I have thoughther liberties were in such imminent danger as at present. "

"He had faced, " says Henry Cabot Lodge, in his interesting life ofWashington, "the enemy, the bleak winters, raw soldiers, and all thedifficulties of impecunious government, with a cheerful courage thatnever failed. But the spectacle of wide-spread popular demoralization, of selfish scramble for plunder, and of feeble administration at thecentre of government, weighed upon him heavily. " And all this at theperiod of the French alliance, which it was thought would soon end thewar. Indeed, hostilities were practically over at the North, and hencethe public lassitude. Nearly two years had passed without animportant battle. 

When Clinton saw that no hope remained of subduing the Americans, theBritish government should have made peace and recognized theindependence of the States. But the obstinacy of the king of England wasphenomenal, and his ministers were infatuated. They could not reconcilethemselves to the greatness of their loss. Their hatred of the rebelswas too bitter for reason to conquer. Hitherto the contest had not beenbloody nor cruel. Few atrocities had been committed, except by therancorous Tories, who slaughtered and burned without pity, and by theIndians who were paid by the British government. Prisoners, on thewhole, had been humanely treated by both the contending armies, althoughthe British prison-ships of New York and their "thousand martyrs" haveleft a dark shadow on the annals of the time. Neither in Boston nor NewYork nor Philadelphia had the inhabitants uttered loud complaintsagainst the soldiers who had successively occupied their houses, and whohad lived as comfortably and peaceably as soldiers in English garrisontowns. Some villages had been burned, but few people had beenmassacred. More inhumanity was exhibited by both Greeks and Turks in theGreek Revolution in one month than by the forces engaged during thewhole American war. The prime minister of England, Lord North, was themost amiable and gentle of men. The brothers Howe would fain havecarried the olive-branch in one hand while they bore arms in the other. It seemed to be the policy of England to do nothing which would inflameanimosities, and prevent the speedy restoration of peace. Spies ofcourse were hanged, and traitors were shot, in accordance with theuniform rules of war. I do not read of a bloodthirsty English general inthe whole course of the war, like those Russian generals who overwhelmedthe Poles; nor did the English generals seem to be really in earnest, orthey would have been bolder in their operations, and would not have beencontented to be shut up for two years in New York when they werenot besieged. 

At length Clinton saw he must do something to satisfy the government athome, and the government felt that a severer policy should be introducedinto warlike operations. Clinton perceived that he could not penetrateinto New England, even if he could occupy the maritime cities. He couldnot ascend the Hudson. He could not retain New Jersey. But the South wasopen to his armies, and had not been seriously invaded. 

As Washington personally was not engaged in the military operations atthe South, I can make only a passing allusion to them. It is not myobject to write a history of the war, but merely to sketch it so far asWashington was directly concerned. The South was left, in the main, todefend itself against the raids which the British generals made in itsdefenceless territories, and these were destructive and cruel. But Gateswas sent to cope with Cornwallis and Tarleton. Washington himself couldnot leave his position near New York, as he had to watch Clinton, defendthe Hudson, and make journeys to Philadelphia to urge Congress to morevigorous measures. Congress, however, was helpless and the Stategovernments were inactive. 

In the meantime, early in May, 1780, Charleston, S. C. , was abandoned tothe enemy, --General Lincoln, who commanded, finding it indefensible. InSeptember the news came North of the battle of Camden and the defeat ofGates, who showed an incompetency equal to his self-sufficiency, andCongress was obliged to remove him. Through Washington's influence, inDecember, 1780, Greene was appointed to succeed him; had the chief'sadvice been followed earlier he would have been sent originally insteadof Gates. Greene turned the tide, and began those masterly operationswhich led to the final expulsion of the English from the South, and, under the guiding mind and firm hand of Washington, to the surrender ofCornwallis. 

On January 17, 1781, Morgan won a brilliant victory at Cowpens, S. C. , which seriously embarrassed Cornwallis; and then succeeded a vigorouscampaign between Cornwallis and Greene for several months, over theCarolinas and the borders of Virginia. The losses of the British were sogreat, even when they had the advantage, that Cornwallis turned his faceto the North, with a view of transferring the seat of war to ChesapeakeBay. Washington then sent all the troops he could spare to Virginia, under La Fayette. He was further aided by the French fleet, under DeGrasse, whom he persuaded to sail to the Chesapeake. La Fayette here didgood service, following closely the retreating army. Clinton failed toreinforce Cornwallis, some say from jealousy, so that the latter feltobliged to fortify himself at Yorktown. Washington, who had beenplanning an attack on New York, now continued his apparent preparations, to deceive Clinton, but crossed the Hudson on the 23d of August, toco-operate with the French fleet and three thousand French troops inVirginia, to support La Fayette. He rapidly moved his available force byswift marches across New Jersey to Elkton, Maryland, at the head ofChesapeake Bay. The Northern troops were brought down the Chesapeake intransports, gathered by great exertions, and on September 28 landed atWilliamsburg, on the Yorktown Peninsula. Cornwallis was now hemmed in bythe combined French and American armies. Had he possessed the control ofthe sea he might have escaped, but as the fleet commanded the Chesapeakethis was impossible. He had well fortified himself, however, and on the5th of October the siege of Yorktown began, followed on the 14th by anassault. On the 19th of October, 1781, Cornwallis was compelled tosurrender, with seven thousand troops. The besieging army numbered aboutfive thousand French and eleven thousand Americans. The success ofWashington was owing to the rapidity of his movements, and the influencewhich, with La Fayette, he brought to bear for the retention at thiscritical time and place of the fleet of the Count de Grasse, who wasdisposed to sail to the West Indies, as D'Estaing had done the yearbefore. Washington's keen perception of the military situation, energetic promptness of action, and his diplomatic tact and address inthis whole affair were remarkable. 

The surrender of Cornwallis virtually closed the war. The swiftconcentration of forces from North and South was due to Washington'sforesight and splendid energy, while its success was mainly due to theFrench, without whose aid the campaign could not have been concluded. 

The moral and political effect of this "crowning mercy" was prodigious. In England it broke up the ministry of Lord North, and made the Englishnation eager for peace, although it was a year or two before hostilitiesceased, and it was not until September 3, 1783, that the treaty wassigned which Franklin, Adams, and Jay had so adroitly negotiated. TheEnglish king would have continued the contest against all hope, encouraged by the possession of New York and Charleston, but hispersonal government practically ceased with the acknowledgment ofAmerican independence. 

The trials of Washington, however, did not end with the great victory atYorktown. There was a serious mutiny in the army which required all histact to quell, arising from the neglect of Congress to pay the troops. There was greater looseness of morals throughout the country than hasbeen generally dreamed of. I apprehend that farmers and mechanics weremore profane, and drank, _per capita_, more cider and rum for twentyyears succeeding the war than at any other period in our history. It wasthen that it was intimated to Washington, in a letter from his friendColonel Louis Nicola, that the state of the country and the impotence ofCongress made it desirable that he should seize the government, and, supported by the army, turn all the confusion into order, --whichprobably would have been easy for him to do, and which would have beenjustified by most historical writers. But Washington repelled the ideawith indignation, both for himself and the army; and not only on thisoccasion but on others when disaffection was rife, he utilized his ownpopularity to arouse anew the loyalty of the sorely tried patriots, hiscompanions in arms. Many are the precedents of usurpation on the part ofsuccessful generals, and few indeed are those who have voluntarilyabdicated power from lofty and patriotic motives. It was this virtualabdication which made so profound an impression on the Europeanworld, --even more profound than was created by the military skill whichWashington displayed in the long war of seven years. It was a rareinstance of magnanimity and absence of ambition which was not withoutits influence on the destinies of America, making it almost impossiblefor any future general to retain power after his work was done, andsetting a proud and unique example of the superiority of moralexcellence over genius and power. 

Washington is venerated not so much for his military genius and successin bringing the war to a triumphant conclusion, as for his patriotismand disinterestedness, since such moral worth as his is much rarer andmore extraordinary than military fame. Fortunately, his devotion to theultimate welfare of the country, universally conceded, was supremewisdom on his part, not only for the land he loved but for himself, andhas given him a name which is above every other name in the history ofmodern times. He was tested, and he turned from the temptation withabhorrence. He might, and he might not, have succeeded in retainingsupreme power, --the culmination of human ambition; but he neither soughtnor desired it. It was reward enough for him to have the consciousnessof virtue, and enjoy the gratitude of his countrymen. 

Washington at last persuaded Congress to do justice to the officers andmen who had sacrificed so much for their country's independence; inspite of the probability of peace, he was tireless in continuingpreparations for effective war. He was of great service to Congress inarranging for the disbandment of the army after the preliminary treatyof peace in March, 1783, and guided by wise counsel the earlierlegislation affecting civil matters in the States and on the frontiers. The general army was disbanded November 3; on November 25 the Britishevacuated New York and the American authorities took possession; onDecember 4 Washington bade farewell to his assembled officers, and onthe 23d he resigned his commission to Congress, --a patriotic andmemorable scene. And then he turned to the placidities of domestic lifein his home at Mount Vernon. 

But this life and this home, so dear to his heart, it was not longpermitted him to enjoy. On the formation and adoption of the FederalConstitution, in 1789, he was unanimously chosen to be the firstpresident of the United States. 

In a preceding lecture I have already presented the brilliantconstellation of statesmen who assembled at Philadelphia to constructthe fabric of American liberties. Washington was one of them, but thisgreat work was not even largely his. On June 8, 1783, he had addressed aletter to the governors of all the States, concerning the essentialelements of the well-being of the United States, which showed the early, careful, and sound thought he had given to the matter of what he termed"an indissoluable union of the States under one Federal head. " But hewas not a great talker, or a great writer, or a pre-eminently greatpolitical genius. He was a general and administrator rather than anoriginal constructive statesman whose work involved a profound knowledgeof law and history. No one man could have done that work; it was theresult of the collected wisdom and experience of the nation, --of thedeliberations of the foremost intellects from the differentStates, --such men as Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, Rutledge, Dickinson, Ellsworth, and others. Jefferson and Adams were absent on diplomaticmissions. Franklin was old and gouty. Even Washington did little morethan preside over the convention; but he stimulated its members, withimposing dignity and the constant exercise of his pre-eminent personalinfluence, to union and conciliation. 

So I turn to consider the administrations of President Washington, thepolicy of which, in the main, was the rule of the succeedingpresidents, --of Adams and "the Virginia dynasty. "

The cabinet which he selected was able and illustrious; especially sowere its brightest stars, --Jefferson as Secretary of State, and Hamiltonas Secretary of the Treasury, to whose opinions the President generallyyielded. It was unfortunate that these two great men liked each other solittle, and were so jealous of each other's ascendency. But theirpolitical ideas diverged in many important points. Hamilton was thechampion of Federalism, and Jefferson of States' Rights; the one, politically, was an aristocrat, and the other, though born on aplantation, was a democrat. Washington had to use all his tact to keepthese statesmen from an open rupture. Their mutual hostility saddenedand perplexed him. He had selected them as the best men for theirrespective posts, and in this had made no mistake; but their opposingopinions prevented that cabinet unity so essential in government, andpossibly crippled Washington himself. This great country has produced noadministration comprising four greater men than President Washington, the general who had led its armies in a desperate war; Vice-PresidentJohn Adams, the orator who most eloquently defined national rights;Jefferson, the diplomatist who managed foreign relations on the basis ofperpetual peace; and Hamilton, the financier who "struck the rock fromwhich flowed the abundant streams of national credit. " General Knox, Secretary of War, had not the intellectual calibre of Hamilton andJefferson, but had proved himself an able soldier and was devoted to hischief. Edmund Randolph, the Attorney-General, was a leading lawyer inVirginia, and belonged to one of its prominent families. 

Outside the cabinet, the judiciary had to be filled, and Washington madechoice of John Jay as chief-justice of the Supreme Court, --a mostadmirable appointment, --and associated with him the great lawyers, Wilson of Pennsylvania, Cushing of Massachusetts, Blair of Virginia, Iredell of North Carolina, and Rutledge of South Carolina, --all of whomwere distinguished, and all selected for their abilities, without regardto their political opinions. 

It is singular that, as this country has advanced in culture andpopulation, the men who have occupied the highest positions have beeninferior in genius and fame, --selected, not because they were great, butbecause they were "available, " that is, because they had few enemies, and were supposed to be willing to become the tools of ambitious andscheming politicians, intriguing for party interests and greedy for thespoils of office. Fortunately, or providentially, some of these menhave disappointed those who elevated them, and have unexpectedlydeveloped in office both uncommon executive power and still rarerintegrity, --reminding us of those popes who have reigned more like foxesand lions than like the asses that before their elevation sometimes theywere thought to be. 

Trifling as it may seem, the first measure of the new governmentpertained to the etiquette to be observed at receptions, dinners, etc. , in which there was more pomp and ceremony than at the present time. Washington himself made a greater public display, with his chariot andfour, than any succeeding president. His receptions were stately. ThePresident stood with dignity, clad in his velvet coat, never shakinghands with any one, however high his rank. He walked between the rows ofvisitors, pretty much as Napoleon did at the Tuileries, saying a fewwords to each; but people of station were more stately and aristocraticin those times than at the present day, even in New England towns. Washington himself was an old-school gentleman of the most formal sort, and, although benevolent in aspect and kindly in manner, was moretenacious of his dignity than great men usually are. This had beennotable throughout the war. His most intimate friends and dailyassociates, his most prominent and trusted generals, patriotic buthot-headed complainants, turbulent malcontents, --all alike found himcourteous and considerate, yet hedged about with an impassive dignitythat no one ever dared to violate. A superb horseman, a powerful andactive swordsman, an unfailing marksman with rifle or pistol, he nevermade a display of these qualities; but there are many anecdotes of suchprowess in sudden emergencies as caused him to be idolized by hiscompanions in arms, while yet their manifestations of feeling wererepressed by the veneration imposed upon all by his loftypersonal dignity. 

Thus also as President. It was no new access of official pomposity, butthe man's natural bearing, that maintained a lofty reserve at thesepublic receptions. Possibly, too, he may have felt the necessity ofmaintaining the prerogative of the Federal head of all theseindependent, but now united, States. Hence, on his visit to Boston, soonafter his inauguration, he was offended with John Hancock, thengovernor of Massachusetts, for neglecting to call on him, as etiquettecertainly demanded. The pompous, overrated old merchant, rich andluxurious, though a genuine patriot, perhaps thought that Washingtonwould first call on him, as governor of the State; perhaps he waswithheld from his official duty by an attack of the gout; but at last hesaw the necessity, and was borne on men's shoulders into the presence ofthe President. 

In considering the vital points in the administration of Washington thereader will not expect to find any of the spirited and exciting elementsof the Revolutionary period. The organization and ordering ofgovernmental policies is not romantic, but hard, patient, perseveringwork. All questions were yet unsettled, --at least in domestic matters, such as finance, tariffs, and revenue. One thing is clear enough, thatthe national debt and the State debts and the foreign debt altogetheramounted to about seventy-five million dollars, the interest on whichwas unpaid by reason of a depleted treasury and want of credit, whichproduced great financial embarrassments. Then there were grave Indianhostilities demanding a large military force to suppress them, and therewas no money to pay the troops. And when Congress finally agreed, in theface of great opposition, to adopt the plans of Hamilton and raise arevenue by excise on distilled spirits, manufactured chiefly inPennsylvania, there was a rebellion among the stubborn and warlikeScotch-Irish, who were the principal distillers of whiskey, whichrequired the whole force of the government to put down. 

In the matter of revenue, involving the most important of all theproblems to be solved, Washington adopted the views of Hamilton, andcontented himself with recommending them to Congress, --a body utterlyinexperienced, and ignorant of the principles of political economy. Nothing was so unpopular as taxation in any form, and yet without it thegovernment could not be carried on. The Southern States wanted anunrestricted commerce, amounting to "free trade, " that they might getall manufactured articles at the smallest possible price; and these camechiefly from abroad. All import duties were an abomination to them, andyet without these a national revenue could not be raised. It is truethat Washington had recommended the encouragement of domesticmanufactures, the dependence of country on foreigners for nearly allsupplies having been one of the chief difficulties of the war, but thegreat idea of "protection" had not become a mooted point in nationallegislation. 

Hamilton had further proposed a bank, but this also met with greatopposition in Congress among the anti-Federalists and the partisans ofJefferson, fearful and jealous of a moneyed power. In the end themeasures which Hamilton suggested were generally adopted, and the goodresults were beginning to be seen, but the financial position of thecountry for several years after the formation of the Federal governmentwas embarrassing, if not alarming. 

Again, there was no national capital, and Congress, which had begun itslabors in New York, could not agree upon the site, which was finallyadopted only by a sort of compromise, --the South accepting the financialscheme of Hamilton if the capital should be located in Southernterritory. All the great national issues pertaining to domesticlegislation were in embryo, and no settled policy was possible amid somany sectional jealousies. 

It was no small task for Washington to steer the ship of state amongthese breakers. No other man in the nation could have done so well ashe, for he was conciliatory and patient, ever ready to listen to reasonand get light from any quarter, modest in his recommendations, knowingwell that his training had not been in the schools of political economy. His good sense and sterling character enabled him to surmount thedifficulties of his situation, which was anything but a bed of roses. 

In the infancy of the republic the foreign relations of the governmentwere deemed more important and excited more interest than internalaffairs, and in the management of foreign affairs Jefferson displayedgreat abilities, which Washington appreciated as much as he did thefinancial genius of Hamilton. In one thing the President and hisSecretary of State were in full accord, --in keeping aloof from thelabyrinth of European politics, and maintaining friendly intercoursewith all nations. With a peace policy only would commerce thrive andindustries be developed, Both Washington and Jefferson were broad-mindedenough to see the future greatness of the country, and embraced the mostliberal views. Hence the foreign envoys were quietly given to understandthat the members of the American government were to be treated with therespect due to the representatives of a free and constantly expandingcountry, which in time would be as powerful as either England or France. 

It was seen, moreover, that both France and England would take everypossible advantage of the new republic, and would seek to retain afoothold in the unexplored territories of the Northwest, as well as togain all they could in commercial transactions. England especiallysought to hamper our trade with the West India Islands, and treated ourenvoys with insolence and coldness. The French sought to entangle theUnited States in their own revolution, with which most Americanssympathized until its atrocities filled them with horror and disgust. The English impressed American seamen into their naval service without ashadow of justice or good faith. 

In 1795 Jay succeeded in making a treaty with the English government, which was ratified because it was the best he could get, not because itwas all that he wished. It bore hard on the cities of the Atlantic coastthat had commercial dealings with the West India Islands, and led topopular discontent, and bitter animosity towards England, finallyculminating in the war of 1812. The French were equally irritating, andunreasonable in their expectations. The Directory in 1793 sent anarrogant and insulting envoy to the seat of government "Citizen Genet, "as he was called, tried to engage the United States in the French waragainst England. Although Washington promptly proclaimed neutrality asthe American policy, Genet gave no end of trouble and vexation. Thisupstart paid no attention to the laws, no respect to the constitutedauthorities, insulted governors and cabinet-ministers alike, insisted ondealing with Congress directly instead of through the Secretary ofState, issued letters of marque for privateers against English commerce, and defied the government. He did all that he could to embroil thecountry in war with Great Britain; and there was a marked division ofsentiment among the people, --the new Democratic-Republican societies, in imitation of the French Jacobin clubs, being potent disseminators ofdemocratic doctrine and sympathy with the French uprising againstdespotism. The forbearance of Washington, in suffering the irascible andboastful Genet to ride rough-shod over his own cabinet, wasextraordinary. In ordinary times the man would have been summarilyexpelled from the country. At last his insults could no longer beendured and his recall was demanded; but he did not return to France, and, strange to say, settled down as a peaceful citizen in New York. Thelenient treatment of this insulting foreigner arose from the reluctanceof Washington to loosen the ties which bound the country to France, andfrom gratitude for the services she had rendered in the war, whatevermay have been the motives that had influenced that government to yieldassistance. 

Washington, who had consented in 1794 to serve a second term aspresident, now began to weary of the cares of office. The quarrelbetween Hamilton and Jefferson, leading to the formation of the twogreat political parties which, under different names, have since dividedthe nation; the whiskey rebellion in Pennsylvania, which required thewhole strength of the government to subdue; the Indian atrocities in theNorthwest, resulting in the unfortunate expedition of St. Clair; theopposition to the financial schemes of the Secretary of the Treasury torestore the credit of the country; and the still greater populardisaffection toward Jay's treaty with Great Britain, --these and otherannoyances made him long for the quiet life of Mount Vernon; and hewould have resigned the presidency in disgust but for patriotic motivesand the urgent remonstrances of his cabinet. Faithful to his trust, hepatiently labored on. If his administration was not dashingly brilliant, any more than his career as a general, he was beset with difficultiesand discouragements which no man could have surmounted more gloriouslythan he: and when his eight years of service had expired he had thesatisfaction to see that the country was at peace with all the world;that his policy of non-interference with European politics wasappreciated; that no more dangers were to be feared from the Indians;that the country was being opened for settlers westward to the OhioRiver; that the navigation of the Mississippi was free to the Gulf ofMexico; that canals and internal improvements were binding together thedifferent States and introducing general prosperity; that financialdifficulties had vanished; and that the independence and assured growthof the nation was no longer a matter of doubt in any European State. 

Nothing could induce Washington to serve beyond his second term. Hecould easily have been again elected, if he wished, but he longed forrest and the pursuits of agricultural life. So he wrote his FarewellAddress to the American people, exhorting them to union and harmony, --adocument filled with noble sentiments for the meditation of all futuregenerations. Like all his other writings, it is pregnant with moralwisdom and elevated patriotism, and in language is clear, forcible, andto the point. He did not aim to advance new ideas or brilliant theories, but rather to enforce old and important truths which would reach theheart as well as satisfy the head. The burden of his song in this, andin all his letters and messages and proclamations, is union and devotionto public interests, unswayed by passion or prejudice. 

On the 3d of March, 1797, the President gave his farewell dinner to themost distinguished men of the time, and as soon as possible after theinauguration of his successor, John Adams, he set out for his plantationon the banks of the Potomac, where he spent his remaining days indignity and quiet hospitalities, amid universal regrets that his publiccareer was ended. 

Even in his retirement, when there seemed to be imminent danger of warwith France, soon after his return to his home, he was ready to buckleon his sword once more; but the troubles were not so serious as hadbeen feared, and soon blew over. They had arisen from the venality andrapacity of Talleyrand, French minister of Foreign affairs, who demandeda bribe from the American commissioners of two-and-a-half millions asthe price of his friendly services in securing favorable settlements. Their scornful reply, and the prompt preparations in America for war, brought the Directory to terms. When the crisis was past Washingtonresumed the care of his large estates, which had become dilapidatedduring the fifteen years of his public life. His retreat was invaded bygreat numbers, who wished to see so illustrious a man, but no one wasturned away from his hospitable mansion. 

In December, 1799, Washington caught cold from imprudent exposure, anddied on the 14th day of the month after a short illness, --not what weshould call a very old man. His life might probably have been saved butthat, according to the universal custom, he was bled, which took awayhis vital forces. On the 16th of December he was buried quietly andwithout parade in the family vault at Mount Vernon, and the whole nationmourned for him as the Israelites mourned for Samuel of old, whom heclosely resembled in character and services. 

It would be useless to dwell upon the traits of character which madeGeorge Washington a national benefactor and a national idol. But oneinquiry is often made, when he is seriously discussed, --whether or no hemay be regarded as a man of genius. It is difficult to define genius, which seems to me to be either an abnormal development of particularfaculties of mind, or an inspired insight into elemental truths sooriginal and profound that its discoveries pass for revelations. Suchgenius as this is remarkably rare, I can recall but one statesman in ourhistory who had extraordinary creative power, and this was Hamilton. Inthe history of modern times we scarcely can enumerate more than a dozenstatesmen, a dozen generals, and the same number of poets, philosophers, theologians, historians, and artists who have had this creative powerand this divine insight. Washington did not belong to that class ofintellects. But he had what is as rare as transcendent genius, --he had atranscendent character, united with a marvellous balance of intellectualqualities, each in itself of a high grade, which gave him almostunerring judgment and remarkable influence over other minds, securingveneration. As a man he had his faults, but they were so few and sosmall that they seem to be but spots upon a sun. These have beenforgotten; and as the ages roll on mankind will see naught but thelustre of his virtues and the greatness of his services. 

AUTHORITIES. 

The best and latest work on Washington is that of the Hon. Henry CabotLodge, and leaves little more to be said; Marshall's Washington has longbeen a standard; Botta's History of the Revolutionary War; Bancroft'sUnited States; McMaster's History of the American People. In connectionread the standard lives of Franklin, John Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jay, Marshall, La Fayette, and Greene, with Washington's writings. JohnFiske has written an admirable book on Washington's military career;indeed his historical series on the early history of America and theUnited States are both brilliant and trustworthy. Of the numerousorations on Washington, perhaps the best is that of Edward Everett. 

ALEXANDER HAMILTON. 

A. D. 1757-1804. 

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. 

There is one man in the political history of the United States whomDaniel Webster regarded as his intellectual superior. And this man wasAlexander Hamilton; not so great a lawyer or orator as Webster, not sobroad and experienced a statesman, but a more original genius, who gaveshape to existing political institutions. And he rendered transcendentservices at a great crisis of American history, and died, with nodecline of popularity, in the prime of his life, like Canning inEngland, with a brilliant future before him. He was one of those fixedstars which will forever blaze in the firmament of American lights, likeFranklin, Washington, and Jefferson; and the more his works arecritically examined, the brighter does his genius appear. No matter howgreat this country is destined to be, --no matter what illustriousstatesmen are destined to arise, and work in a larger sphere with theeyes of the world upon them, --Alexander Hamilton will be remembered andwill be famous for laying one of the corner-stones in the foundation ofthe American structure. 

He was not born on American soil, but on the small West India Island ofNevis. His father was a broken-down Scotch merchant, and his mother wasa bright and gifted French lady, of Huguenot descent. The Scotch andFrench blood blended, is a good mixture in a country made up of all theEuropean nations. But Hamilton, if not an American by birth, wasAmerican in his education and sympathies and surroundings, andultimately married into a distinguished American family of Dutchdescent. At the age of twelve he was placed in the counting-house of awealthy American merchant, where his marked ability made him friends, and he was sent to the United States to be educated. As a boy he wasprecocious, like Cicero and Bacon; and the boy was father of the man, since politics formed one of his earliest studies. Such a precociouspolitician was he while a student in King's College, now Columbia, inNew York, that at the age of seventeen he entered into all thecontroversies of the day, and wrote essays which, replying to pamphletsattacking Congress over the signature of "A Westchester Farmer, " wereattributed to John Jay and Governor Livingston. As a college boy he tookpart in public political discussions on those great questions whichemployed the genius of Burke, and occupied the attention of the leadingmen of America. 

This was at the period when the colonies had not actually rebelled, butwhen they meditated resistance, --during the years between 1773 and 1776, when the whole country was agitated by political tracts, indignationmeetings, patriotic sermons, and preparations for military struggle. Hitherto the colonies had not been oppressed; they had most of therights and privileges they desired; but they feared that theirliberties--so precious to them, and which they had virtually enjoyedfrom their earliest settlements--were in danger of being wrested away. And their fears were succeeded by indignation when the Coercion Act waspassed by the English parliament, and when it was resolved to tax themwithout their consent, and without a representation of their interests. Nor did they desire war, nor even, at first, entire separation from theMother Country; but they were ready to accept war rather than to submitto injustice, or any curtailment of their liberties. They had alwaysenjoyed self-government in such vital matters as schools, municipal andlocal laws, taxes, colonial judges, and unrestricted town-meetings. These privileges the Americans resolved at all hazard to keep: some, because they had been accustomed to them all their days; others, fromthe abstract idea of freedom which Rousseau had inculcated with so mucheloquence, which fascinated such men as Franklin and Jefferson; andothers again, from the deep conviction that the colonies were strongenough to cope successfully with any forces that England could thencommand, should coercion be attempted, --to which latter classWashington, Pinckney, and Jay belonged; men of aristocratic sympathies, but intensely American. It was no democratic struggle to enlarge thefranchise, and realize Rousseau's idea of fraternity and equality, --anidea of blended socialism, infidelity, and discontent, --which united thecolonies in resistance; but a broad, noble, patriotic desire, first, toconserve the rights of free English colonists, and finally to makeAmerica independent of all foreign forces, combined with a lofty faithin their own resources for success, however desperate the strugglemight be. 

All parties now wanted independence, to possess a country of their own, free of English shackles. They got tired of signing petitions, of beingmere colonists. So they sent delegates to Philadelphia to deliberate ontheir difficulties and aspirations; and on July 4, 1776, these delegatesissued the Declaration of Independence, penned by Jefferson, one of thenoblest documents ever written by the hand of man, the Magna Charta ofAmerican liberties, in which are asserted the great rights ofmankind, --that all men have the right to seek happiness in their ownway, and are entitled to the fruit of their labors; and that the peopleare the source of power, and belong to themselves, and not to kings, ornobles, or priests. 

In signing this document the Revolutionary patriots knew that it meantwar; and soon the struggle came, --one of the inevitable and foreordainedevents of history, --when Hamilton was still a college student. He waseighteen when the battle of Lexington was fought; and he lost no time injoining the volunteers. Dearborn and Stark from New Hampshire, Putnamand Arnold from Connecticut, and Greene from Rhode Island, all nowresolved on independence, "liberty or death. " Hamilton left his collegewalls to join a volunteer regiment of artillery, of which he soon becamecaptain, from his knowledge of military science which he had beenstudying in anticipation of the contest. In this capacity he was engagedin the battle of White Plains, the passage of the Raritan, and thebattles at Princeton and Trenton. 

When the army encamped at Morristown, in the gloomy winter of 1776-1777, his great abilities having been detected by the commander-in-chief, hewas placed upon Washington's staff, as aide-de-camp with the rank oflieutenant-colonel, --a great honor for a boy of nineteen. Yet he was notthus honored and promoted on account of remarkable military abilities, although, had he continued in active service, he would probably havedistinguished himself as a general, for he had courage, energy, anddecision; but he was selected by Washington on account of his marvellousintellectual powers. So, half-aide and half-secretary, he became at oncethe confidential adviser of the General, and was employed by him notonly in his multitudinous correspondence, but in difficult negotiations, and in those delicate duties which required discretion and tact. He hadthose qualities which secured confidence, --integrity, diligence, fidelity, and a premature wisdom. He had brains and all those resourceswhich would make him useful to his country. Many there were who couldfight as well as he, but there were few who had those high qualities onwhich the success of a campaign depended. Thus he was sent to the campof General Gates at Albany to demand the division of his forces and thereinforcement of the commander-in-chief, which Gates was very unwillingto accede to, for the capture of Burgoyne had turned his head. He wasthen the most popular officer of the army, and even aspired to the chiefcommand. So he was inclined to evade the orders of his superior, underthe plea of military necessity. It required great tact in a young man topersuade an ambitious general to diminish his own authority; butHamilton was successful in his mission, and won the admiration ofWashington for his adroit management. He was also very useful in themost critical period of the war in ferreting out conspiracies, cabala, and intrigues; for such there were, even against Washington, whosetranscendent wisdom and patriotism were not then appreciated as theywere afterwards. 

The military services of Hamilton were concealed from the common eye, and lay chiefly in his sage counsels; for, young as he was, he had moreintellect and sagacity than any man in the army. It was Hamilton whourged decisive measures in that campaign which was nearly blasted by theegotism and disobedience of Lee. It was Hamilton who was sent to theFrench admiral to devise a co-operation of forces, and to theheadquarters of the English to negotiate for an exchange of prisoners. It was Hamilton who dissuaded Washington from seizing the person of SirHarry Clinton, the English commander in New York, when he had theopportunity. "Have you considered the consequences of seizing theGeneral?" said the aide. "What would these be?" inquired Washington. "Why, " replied Hamilton, "we should lose more than we should gain; sincewe perfectly understand his plans, and by taking them off, we shouldmake way for an abler man, whose dispositions we have yet to learn. "Such was the astuteness which Hamilton early displayed, so that hereally rendered great military services, without commanding onthe field. 

When quite a young man he was incidentally of great use in suggestingto influential members of Congress certain financial measures which werethe germ of that fiscal policy which afterwards made him immortal asSecretary of the Treasury; for it was in finance that his genius shoneout with the brightest lustre. It was while he was the aid and secretaryof Washington that he also unfolded, in a letter to Judge Duane, thoseprinciples of government which were afterwards developed in "TheFederalist. " He had "already formed comprehensive opinions on thesituation and wants of the infant States, and had wrought out forhimself a political system far in advance of the conceptions of hiscontemporaries. " It was by his opinions on the necessities and wants ofthe country, and the way to meet them, that his extraordinary genius wasnot only seen, but was made useful to those in power. His brain was tooactive and prolific to be confined to the details of military service;he entered into a discussion of all those great questions which formedthe early constitutional history of the United States, --all the moreremarkable because he was so young. In fact he never was a boy; he was aman before he was seventeen. His ability was surpassed only by hisprecocity. No man saw the evils of the day so clearly as he, orsuggested such wise remedies as he did when he was in the family ofWashington. 

We are apt to suppose that it was all plain sailing after the colonieshad declared their independence, and their armies were marshalled underthe greatest man--certainly the wisest and best--in the history ofAmerica and of the eighteenth century. But the difficulties wereappalling even to the stoutest heart. In less than two years after thebattle of Bunker Hill popular enthusiasm had almost fled, although theleaders never lost hope of ultimate success. The characters of theleading generals were maligned, even that of the general-in-chief; tradeand all industries were paralyzed; the credit of the States was at thelowest ebb; there were universal discontents; there were unforeseendifficulties which had never been anticipated; Congress was nearlypowerless, a sort of advisory board rather than a legislature; theStates were jealous of Congress and of each other; there was a generaldemoralization; there was really no central power strong enough toenforce the most excellent measures; the people were poor; demagoguessowed suspicion and distrust; labor was difficult to procure; theagricultural population was decimated; there was no commerce; peoplelived on salted meats, dried fish, baked beans, and brown bread; allforeign commodities were fabulously dear; there was universal hardshipand distress; and all these evils were endured amid foreign contempt andpolitical disintegration, --a sort of moral chaos difficult to conceive. It was amid these evils that our Revolutionary fathers toiled andsuffered. It was against these that Hamilton brought his great geniusto bear. 

At the age of twenty-three, after having been four years in the familyof Washington as his adviser rather than subordinate, Hamilton, doubtless ambitious, and perhaps elated by a sense of his ownimportance, testily took offence at a hasty rebuke on the part of theGeneral and resigned his situation. Loath was Washington to part withsuch a man from his household. But Hamilton was determined, and tardilyhe obtained a battalion, with the brevet rank of general, anddistinguished himself in those engagements which preceded the capture ofLord Cornwallis; and on the surrender of this general, --feeling that thewar was virtually ended, --he withdrew altogether from the army, andbegan the study of law at Albany. He had already married the daughter ofGeneral Schuyler, and thus formed an alliance with a powerful family. After six months of study he was admitted to the Bar, and soon removedto New York, which then contained but twenty-five thousand inhabitants. 

His legal career was opened, like that of Cicero and Erskine, by adifficult case which attracted great attention and brought him intonotice. In this case he rendered a political service as well as earned alegal fame. An action was brought by a poor woman, impoverished by thewar, against a wealthy British merchant, to recover damages for the useof a house he enjoyed when the city was occupied by the enemy. Theaction was founded on a recent statute of the State of New York, whichauthorized proceedings for trespass by persons who had been driven fromtheir homes by the invasion of the British. The plaintiff therefore hadthe laws of New York on her side, as well as popular sympathies; and herclaim was ably supported by the attorney-general. But it involved agrave constitutional question, and conflicted with the articles of peacewhich the Confederation had made with England; for in the treaty withGreat Britain an amnesty had been agreed to for all acts done during thewar by military orders. The interests of the plaintiff were overlookedin the great question whether the authority of Congress and the law ofnations, or the law of a State legislature, should have the ascendency. In other words, Congress and the State of New York were in conflict asto which should be paramount, --the law of Congress, or the law of asovereign State, --in a matter which affected a national treaty. If thetreaty were violated, new complications would arise with England, andthe authority of Congress be treated with contempt. Hamilton grappledwith the subject in the most comprehensive manner, --like a statesmanrather than a lawyer, --made a magnificent argument in favor of thegeneral government, and gained his case; although it would seem thatnatural justice was in favor of the poor woman, deprived of the use ofher house by a wealthy alien, during the war. He rendered a service tocentralized authority, to the power of Congress. It was the incipientcontest between Federal and State authority. It was enlightened reasonand patriotism gaining a victory over popular passions, over theassumptions of a State. It defined the respective rights of a State andof the Nation collectively. It was one of those cases which settled thegreat constitutional question that the authority of the Nation wasgreater than that of any State which composed it, in matters whereCongress had a recognized jurisdiction. 

It was about this time that Hamilton was brought in legal conflict withanother young man of great abilities, ambition, and popularity; and thisman was Aaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards. Like Hamilton, hehad gained great distinction in the war, and was one of the rising youngmen of the country. He was superior to Hamilton in personal popularityand bewitching conversation; his equal in grace of manner, in forensiceloquence and legal reputation, but his inferior in comprehensiveintellect and force of character. Hamilton dwelt in the region of greatideas and principles; Burr loved to resort to legal technicalities, sophistries, and the dexterous use of dialectical weapons. In arguing acase he would descend to every form of annoyance and interruption, byquibbles, notices, and appeals. Both lawyers were rapid, logical, compact, and eloquent. Both seized the strong points of a case, likeMason and Webster. Hamilton was earnest and profound, and soared toelemental principles. Burr was acute, adroit, and appealed to passions. Both admired each other's talents and crossed each other'stracks, --rivals at the Bar and in political aspirations. The legalcareer of both was eclipsed by their political labors. The lawyer, inHamilton's case, was lost in the statesman, and in Burr's in thepolitician. And how wide the distinction between a statesman and apolitician! To be a great statesman a man must be conversant withhistory, finance, and science; he must know everything, like Gladstone, and he must have at heart the great interests of a nation; he must be aman of experience and wisdom and reason; he must be both enlightened andpatriotic, merging his own personal ambition in the good of hiscountry, --an oracle and sage whose utterances are received withattention and respect. To be a statesman demands the highest maturity ofreason, far-reaching views, and the power of taking in the interests ofa whole country rather than of a section. But to be a successfulpolitician a man may be ignorant, narrow, and selfish; most probably hewill be artful, dissembling, going in for the winning side, shakinghands with everybody, profuse in promises, bland, affable, ready to doanything for anybody, and seeking the interests and flattering theprejudices of his own constituency, indifferent to the great questionson which the welfare of a nation rests, if only his own privateinterests be advanced. All politicians are not so small andcontemptible; many are honest, as far as they can see, but can see onlypetty details, and not broad effects. Mere politicians, --observe, Iqualify what I say, --_mere_ politicians resemble statesmen, intellectually, as pedants resemble scholars of large culture, comprehensive intellects, and varied knowledge; they will consider adate, or a name, or a comma, of more importance than the great universe, which no one can ever fully and accurately explore. 

I have given but a short notice of Hamilton as a lawyer, because hisservices as a statesman are of so much greater importance, especially tothe student of history. His sphere became greatly enlarged when heentered into those public questions on which the political destiny of anation rests. He was called to give a direction to the policy of theyoung government that had arisen out of the storms of revolution, --apolicy which must be carried out when the nation should become powerfuland draw upon itself the eyes of the civilized world. "Just as the twigis bent, the tree's inclined. " It was the privilege and glory ofHamilton to be one of the most influential of all the men of his day inbending the twig which has now become so great a tree. We can see hishand in the distinctive features of our Constitution, and especially inthat financial policy which extricated the nation from the poverty andembarrassments bequeathed by the war, and which, on the whole, has beenthe policy of the Government from his day to ours. Greater statesmen mayarise than he, but no future statesman will ever be able to shape anational policy as he has done. He is one of the great fathers of theRepublic, and was as efficient in founding a government and a financialpolicy, as Saint Augustine was in giving shape to the doctrines of theChurch in his age, and in mediaeval ages. Hamilton was therefore abenefactor to the State, as Augustine was to the Church. 

But before Hamilton could be of signal service to the country as anorganizer and legislator, it was necessary to have a national governmentwhich the country would accept, and which would be lasting andefficient. There was a political chaos for years after the war. Congresshad no generally recognized authority; it was merely a board ofdelegates, whose decisions were disregarded, representing a league ofStates, not an independent authority. There was no chief executiveofficer, no court of national judges, no defined legislature. We were aleague of emancipated colonies drifting into anarchy. There was reallyno central government; only an autonomy of States like the ancientGrecian republics, and the lesser States were jealous of the greater. The great questions pertaining to slavery were unsettled, --how far itshould extend, and how far it could be interfered with. We had ships andcommerce, but no commercial treaties with other nations. We importedgoods and merchandise, but there were no laws of tariff or of revenue. If one State came into collision with another State, there was notribunal to settle the difficulty. No particular industries wereprotected. Of all things the most needed was a national governmentsuperior to State governments, taking into its own hands exclusively thearmy and navy, tariffs, revenues, the post-office, the regulation ofcommerce, and intercourse with foreign States. Oh, what times thosewere! What need of statesmanship and patriotism and wisdom! I havealluded to various evils of the day. I will not repeat them. Why, ourcondition at the end of the War of the Rebellion, when we had a nationaldebt of three thousand millions, and general derangement anddemoralization, was an Elysium compared with that of our fathers at theclose of the Revolutionary War, --no central power, no constitution, nogovernment, with poverty, agricultural distress, and uncertainty, andthe prostration of all business; no national credit, no nationaléclat, --a mass of rude, unconnected, and anarchic forces threatening toengulf us in worse evils than those from which we had fled. 

The thinking and sober men of the country were at last aroused, and theconviction became general that the Confederacy was unable to cope withthe difficulties which arose on every side. So, through the influence ofHamilton, a convention of five States assembled at Annapolis to providea remedy for the public evils. But it did not fully represent the variedopinions and interests of the whole country. All it could do was toprepare the way for a general convention of States; and twelve Statessent delegates to Philadelphia, who met in the year 1787. The greatpublic career of Hamilton began as a delegate from the State of New Yorkto this illustrious assembly. He was not the most distinguished member, for he was still a young man; nor the most popular, for he had too muchrespect for the British constitution, and was too aristocratic in hissympathies, and perhaps in his manners, to be a favorite. But he wasprobably the ablest man of the convention, the most original andcreative in his genius, the most comprehensive and far-seeing in hisviews, --a man who inspired confidence and respect for his integrity andpatriotism, combining intellectual with moral force. He would have beena great man in any age or country, or in any legislative assembly, --aman who had great influence over superior minds, as he had over that ofWashington, whose confidence he had from first to last. 

I am inclined to think that no such an assembly of statesmen has sincebeen seen in this country as that which met to give a constitution tothe American Republic. Of course, I cannot enumerate all thedistinguished men. They were all distinguished, --men of experience, patriotism, and enlightened minds. There were fifty-four of theseillustrious men, --the picked men of the land, of whom the nation wasproud. Franklin, now in his eightieth year, was the Nestor of theassembly, covered with honors from home and abroad for his science andhis political experience and sagacity, --a man who received moreflattering attentions in France than any American who ever visited it;one of the great savants of the age, dignified, affable, courteous, whomeverybody admired and honored. Washington, too, was there, --the Ulyssesof the war, brave in battle and wise in council, of transcendent dignityof character, whose influence was patriarchal, the synonym of moralgreatness, to be revered through all ages and countries; a trulyimmortal man whose fame has been steadily increasing. Adams, Jefferson, and Jay, three very great lights, were absent on missions to Europe;but Rufus King, Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, Livingston, Dickinson, Rutledge, Randolph, Pinckney, Madison, were men of great ability andreputation, independent in their views, but all disposed to unite in thecommon good. Some had been delegates to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765;some, members of the Continental Congress of 1774; some, signers of theDeclaration of Independence. There were no political partisans then, aswe now understand the word, for the division lines of parties were notthen drawn. All were animated with the desire of conciliation and union. All felt the necessity of concessions. They differed in their opinionsas to State rights, representation, and slavery. Some were moredemocratic, and some more aristocratic than the majority, but all wereunited in maintaining the independence of the country and in distrust ofmonarchies. 

It is impossible within my narrow limits to describe the deliberationsof these patriots, until their work was consummated in the gloriousConstitution which is our marvel and our pride. The discussions firstturned on the respective powers to be exercised by the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the proposed central government, and the duration of the terms of service. Hamilton's views favored amore efficient executive than was popular with the States or delegates;but it cannot be doubted that his powerful arguments, and clearenunciation of fundamental principles of government had great weightwith men more eager for truth than victory. There were animateddiscussions as to the ratio of representation, and the equality ofStates, which gave rise to the political parties which first divided thenation, and which were allied with those serious questions pertaining toState rights which gave rise, in part, to our late war. But the root ofthe dissensions, and the subject of most animated debates, wasslavery, --that awful curse and difficult question, which was not settleduntil the sword finally cut that Gordian knot. But so far as compromisescould settle the question, they were made in the spirit ofpatriotism, --not on principles of abstract justice, but of expediencyand common-sense. It was evident from the first that there could be nofederal, united government, no nation, only a league of States, unlesscompromises were made in reference to slavery, whose evils were asapparent then as they were afterwards. For the sake of nationality andunion and peace, slavery was tolerated by the Constitution. To some thismay appear to have been a grave error, but to the makers of theConstitution it seemed to be a less evil to tolerate slavery than haveno Constitution at all, which would unite all the States. Harmony andnational unity seemed to be the paramount consideration. 

So a compromise was made. We are apt to forget how great institutionsare often based on compromise, --not a mean and craven sentiment, as somethink, but a spirit of conciliation and magnanimity, without which therecan be no union or stability. Take the English Church, which hassurvived the revolutions of human thought for three centuries, which hasbeen a great bulwark against infidelity, and has proved itself to bedear to the heart of the nation, and the source of boundless blessingsand proud recollections, --it was a compromise, half-way indeed betweenRome and Geneva, but nevertheless a great and beneficent organization onthe whole. Take the English constitution itself, one of the grandesttriumphs of human reason and experience, --it was only gradually formedby a series of bloodless concessions. Take the Roman constitution, underwhich the whole civilized world was brought into allegiance, --it was aseries of concessions granted by the aristocratic classes. Mostrevolutions and wars end in compromise after the means of fighting areexpended. Most governments are based on expediency rather than abstractprinciples. The actions of governments are necessarily expedients, --thewisest policy in view of all the circumstances. Even such anuncompromising logician as Saint Paul accepted some customs which wethink were antagonistic to the spirit of his general doctrines. He was agreat temperance man, but recommended a little wine to Timothy for thestomach's sake. And Moses, too, the great founder of the Jewish polity, permitted polygamy because of the hardness of men's hearts. So thefathers of the Constitution preferred a constitution with slavery to noconstitution at all. Had each of those illustrious men persisted in hisown views, we should have had only an autonomy of States instead of theglorious Union, which in spite of storms stands unshaken to-day. 

I cannot dwell on those protracted debates, which lasted four months, oron the minor questions which demanded attention, --all centering in thegreat question whether the government should be federative or national. But the ablest debater of the convention was Hamilton, and his speecheswere impressive and convincing. He endeavored to impress upon the mindsof the members that liberty was found neither in the rule of a fewaristocrats, nor in extreme democracy; that democracies had proved moreshort-lived than aristocracies, as illustrated in Greece, Rome, andEngland. He showed that extreme democracies, especially in cities, wouldbe governed by demagogues; that universal suffrage was a dangerousexperiment when the people had neither intelligence nor virtue; that nogovernment could last which was not just and enlightened; that allgovernments should be administered by men of experience and integrity;that any central government should have complete control over commerce, tariffs, revenues, post-offices, patents, foreign relations, the armyand navy, peace or war; and that in all these functions of nationalinterest the central government should be independent of Statelegislatures, so that the State and National legislatures should notclash. Many of his views were not adopted, but it is remarkable that thesubsequent changes and modifications of the Constitution have been inthe direction of his policy; that wars and great necessities havegradually brought about what he advocated with so much calmness andwisdom. Guizot asserts that "he must ever be classed among the men whohave best understood the vital principles and elemental conditions ofgovernment; and that there is not in the Constitution of the UnitedStates an element of order, or force, or duration which he did notpowerfully contribute to secure. " This is the tribute of that great andlearned statesman and historian to the genius and services of Hamilton. What an exalted praise! To be the maker of a constitution requires thehighest maturity of reason. It was the peculiar glory of Moses, --theablest man ever born among the Jews, and the greatest benefactor hisnation ever had. How much prouder the fame of a beneficent andenlightened legislator than that of a conqueror! The code which Napoleongave to France partially rescues his name from the infamy that hisinjuries inflicted on mankind. Who are the greatest men of the presentday, and the most beneficent? Such men as Gladstone and Bright, who areseeking by wise legislation to remove or meliorate the evils ofcenturies of injustice. Who have earned the proudest national fame inthe history of America since the Constitution was made? Such men asWebster, Clay, Seward, Sumner, who devoted their genius to theelucidation of fundamental principles of government and politicaleconomy. The sphere of a great lawyer may bring more personal gains, butit is comparatively narrow to that of a legislator who originatesimportant measures for the relief or prosperity of a whole country. 

The Constitution when completed was not altogether such as Hamiltonwould have made, but he accepted it cordially as the best which could behad. It was not perfect, but probably the best ever devised by humangenius, with its checks and balances, "like one of those rocking-stonesreared by the Druids, " as Winthrop beautifully said, "which the fingerof a child may vibrate to its centre, yet which the might of an armycannot move from its place. "

The next thing to be done was to secure its ratification by the severalStates, --a more difficult thing than at first sight would be supposed;for the State legislatures were mainly composed of mere politicians, without experience or broad views, and animated by popular passions. Sothe States were tardy in accepting it, especially the larger ones, likeVirginia, New York, and Massachusetts. And it may reasonably be doubtedwhether it would have been accepted at all, had it not been for the ablepapers which Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote and published in a leadingNew York paper, --essays which go under the name of "The Federalist, "long a text-book in our colleges, and which is the best interpreter ofthe Constitution itself. It is everywhere quoted; and if those ablepapers may have been surpassed in eloquence by some of the speeches ofour political orators, they have never been equalled in calm reasoning. They appealed to the intelligence of the age, --an age which loved toread Butler's "Analogy, " and Edwards "On the Will;" an age not yetengrossed in business and pleasure, when people had time to ponder onwhat is profound and lofty; an age not so brilliant as our own inmechanical inventions and scientific researches, but more contemplative, and more impressible by grand sentiments. I do not say that the formertimes were better than these, as old men have talked for two thousandyears, for those times were hard, and the struggles of life weregreat, --without facilities of travel, without luxuries, without evencomforts, as they seem to us; but there was doubtless then a loftierspiritual life, and fewer distractions in the pursuit of solidknowledge; people then could live in the country all the year roundwithout complaint, or that restless craving for novelties whichdemoralizes and undermines the moral health. Hamilton wrote sixty-threeof the eighty-five (more than half) of these celebrated papers which hada great influence on public opinion, --clear, logical, concise, masterlyin statement, and in the elucidation of fundamental principles ofgovernment. Probably no series of political essays has done so much tomould the opinions of American statesmen as those of "TheFederalist, "--a thesaurus of political wisdom, as much admired in Europeas in America. It was translated into most of the European languages, and in France placed side by side with Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" ingenius and ability. It was not written for money or fame, but frompatriotism, to enlighten the minds of the people, and prepare them forthe reception of the Constitution. 

In this great work Hamilton rendered a mighty service to his country. Nothing but the conclusive arguments which he made, assisted by Jay andMadison, aroused the people fully to a sense of the danger attending animperfect union of States. By the efforts of Hamilton outside theconvention, more even than in the convention, the Constitution wasfinally adopted, --first by Delaware and last by Rhode Island, in 1790, and then only by one majority in the legislature. So difficult was thework of construction. We forget the obstacles and the anxieties andlabors of our early statesmen, in the enjoyment of our presentliberties. 

But the public services of Hamilton do not end here. To himpre-eminently belongs the glory of restoring or creating our nationalcredit, and relieving universal financial embarrassments. TheConstitution was the work of many men. Our financial system was the workof one, who worked alone, as Michael Angelo worked on the ceiling of theSistine Chapel. 

When Washington became President, he at once made choice of Hamilton ashis Secretary of the Treasury, at the recommendation of Robert Morris, _the_ financier of the Revolution, who not only acknowledged his ownobligations to him, but declared that he was the only man in the UnitedStates who could settle the difficulty about the public debt. Infinance, Hamilton, it is generally conceded, had an original andcreative genius. "He smote the rock of the national resources, " saidWebster, "and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth. He touched thedead corpse of the public credit, and it sprang upon its feet. Thefabled birth of Minerva from the brain of Jupiter was hardly more suddenthan the financial system of the United States as it burst from theconception of Alexander Hamilton. "

When he assumed the office of Secretary of the Treasury there were fiveforms of public indebtedness for which he was required to provide, --theforeign debt; debts of the Government to States; the army debt; the debtfor supplies in the various departments during the war; and the oldContinental issues. There was no question about the foreign debt. Theassumption of the State debts incurred for the war was identical withthe debts of the Union, since they were incurred for the same object. Infact, all the various obligations had to be discharged, and there wasneither money nor credit. Hamilton proposed a foreign loan, to be raisedin Europe; but the old financiers had sought foreign loans and failed. How was the new Congress likely to succeed any better? Only by creatingconfidence; making it certain that the interest of the loan would bepaid, and paid in specie. In other words, they were to raise a revenueto pay this interest. This simple thing the old Congress had not thoughtof, or had neglected, or found impracticable. And how should therequired revenue be raised? Direct taxation was odious and unreliable. Hamilton would raise it by duties on imports. But how was animpoverished country to raise money to pay the duties when there was nomoney? How was the dead corpse to be revived? He would develop thevarious industries of the nation, all in their infancy, by protectingthem, so that the merchants and the manufacturers could compete withforeigners; so that foreign goods could be brought to our seaports inour own ships, and our own raw materials exchanged for articles we couldnot produce ourselves, and be subject to duties, --chiefly on articles ofluxury, which some were rich enough to pay for. And he would offerinducements for foreigners to settle in the country, by the sale ofpublic lands at a nominal sum, --men who had a little money, and notabsolute paupers; men who could part with their superfluities for eithergoods manufactured or imported, and especially for some things they musthave, on which light duties would be imposed, like tea and coffee; andheavy duties for things which the rich would have, like broadcloths, wines, brandies, silks, and carpets. Thus a revenue could be raised morethan sufficient to pay the interest on the debt. He made this so clearby his luminous statements, going into all details, that confidencegradually was established both as to our ability and also our honesty;and money flowed in easily and plentifully from Europe, since foreignersfelt certain that the interest on their loans would be paid. 

Thus in all his demonstrations he appealed to common-sense, nottheories. He took into consideration the necessities of his own country, not the interests of other countries. He would legislate for America, not universal humanity. The one great national necessity was protection, and this he made as clear as the light of the sun. "One of our errors, "said he, "is that of judging things by abstract calculations, whichthough geometrically true, are practically false. " It was clear that theGovernment must have a revenue, and that revenue could only be raised bydirect or indirect taxation; and he preferred, under the circumstancesof the country, indirect taxes, which the people did not feel, and werenot compelled to pay unless they liked; for the poor were not compelledto buy foreign imports, but if they bought them they must pay a tax togovernment. And he based his calculations that people could afford topurchase foreign articles, of necessity and luxury, on the enormousresources of the country, --then undeveloped, indeed, but which would bedeveloped by increasing settlements, increasing industries, andincreasing exports; and his predictions were soon fulfilled. In a fewyears the debt disappeared altogether, or was felt to be no burden. Thecountry grew rich as its industries were developed; and its industrieswere developed by protection. 

I will not enter upon that unsettled question of political economy. There are two sides to it. What is adapted to the circumstances of onecountry may not be adapted to another; what will do for England may notdo practically for Russia; and what may be adapted to the condition of acountry at one period may not be adapted at another period. When acountry has the monopoly of a certain manufacture, then that countrycan dispense with protection. Before manufactures were developed inEngland by the aid of steam and improved machinery, the principles offree-trade would not have been adopted by the nation. The landedinterests of Great Britain required no protection forty years ago, sincethere was wheat enough raised in the country to supply demands. So thelanded aristocracy accepted free-trade, because their interests were notjeopardized, and the interests of the manufacturers were greatlypromoted. Now that the landed interests are in jeopardy from adiminished rental, they must either be protected, or the lands must becut up into small patches and farms, as they are in France. Farmers mustraise fruit and vegetables instead of wheat. 

When Hamilton proposed protection for our infant manufactures, theynever could have grown unless they had been assisted; we should havebeen utterly dependent on Europe. That is just what Europe would haveliked. But he did not legislate for Europe, but for America. Heconsidered its necessities, not abstract theories, nor even theinterests of other nations. How hypocritical the cant in England aboutfree-trade! There never was free-trade in that country, except inreference to some things it must have, and some things it couldmonopolize. Why did Parliament retain the duty on tobacco and wines andother things? Because England must have a revenue. Hamilton did thesame. He would raise a revenue, just as Great Britain raises a revenueto-day, in spite of free-trade, by taxing certain imports. And if themanufactures of England to-day should be in danger of being swamped byforeign successful competition, the Government would change its policy, and protect the manufactures. Better protect them than allow them toperish, even at the expense of national pride. 

But the manufactures of this country at the close of the RevolutionaryWar were too insignificant to expect much immediate advantage fromprotection. It was Hamilton's policy chiefly to raise a revenue, and toraise it by duties on imports, as the simplest and easiest and surestway, when people were poor and money was scarce. Had he lived in thesedays, he might have modified his views, and raised revenue in otherways. But he labored for his time and circumstances. He took intoconsideration the best way to raise a revenue for his day; for this hemust have, somehow or other, to secure confidence and credit. He wasmost eminently practical. He hated visionary ideas and abstracttheories; he had no faith in them at all. You can push any theory, anyabstract truth even, into absurdity, as the theologians of the MiddleAges carried out their doctrines to their logical sequence. You cannotsettle the complicated relations of governments by deductions. At bestyou can only approximate to the truth by induction, by a dueconsideration of conflicting questions and issues and interests. 

The next important measure of Hamilton was the recommendation of aNational Bank, in order to facilitate the collection of the revenue. Here he encountered great opposition. Many politicians of the school ofJefferson were jealous of moneyed institutions, but Hamilton succeededin having a hank established though not with so large a capital ashe desired. 

It need not he told that the various debates in Congress on the fundingof the national debt, on tariffs, on the bank, and other financialmeasures, led to the formation of two great political parties, whichdivided the nation for more than twenty years, --parties of whichHamilton and Jefferson were the respective leaders. Madison now left thesupport of Hamilton, and joined hands with the party of Jefferson, whichtook the name of Republican, or Democratic-Republican. The Federalparty, which Hamilton headed, had the support of Washington, Adams, Jay, Pinckney, and Morris. It was composed of the most memorable names of theRevolution and, it may be added, of the more wealthy, learned, andconservative classes: some would stigmatize it as being the mostaristocratic. The colleges, the courts of law, and the fashionablechurches were generally presided over by Federalists. Old gentlemen ofsocial position and stable religious opinions belonged to this party. But ambitious young men, chafing under the restraints of consecratedrespectability, popular politicians, or as we might almost say thedemagogues, the progressive and restless people and liberal thinkersenamored of French philosophy and theories and abstractions, wereinclined to be Republicans. There were exceptions, of course. I onlyspeak in a general way; nor would I give the impression that there werenot many distinguished, able, and patriotic men enlisted in the party ofJefferson, especially in the Southern States, in Pennsylvania, and NewYork. Jefferson himself was, next to Hamilton, the ablest statesman ofthe country, --upright, sincere, patriotic, contemplative; simple intaste, yet aristocratic in habits; a writer rather than an orator, ignorant of finance, but versed in history and general knowledge, devoted to State rights, and bitterly opposed to a strong central power. He hated titles, trappings of rank and of distinction, ostentatiousdress, shoe-buckles, hair-powder, pig-tails, and everything English, while he loved France and the philosophy of liberal thinkers; not areligious man, but an honest and true man. And when he became President, on the breaking up of the Federal party, partly from the indiscretionsof Adams and the intrigues of Burr, and hostility to the intellectualsupremacy of Hamilton, --who was never truly popular, any more thanWebster and Burke were, since intellectual arrogance and superiorityare offensive to fortunate or ambitious nobodies, --Jefferson's prudenceand modesty kept him from meddling with the funded debt and fromentangling alliances with the nation he admired. Jefferson was notsweeping in his removals from office, although he unfortunatelyinaugurated that fatal policy consummated by Jackson, which has sincebeen the policy of the Government, --that spoils belong to victors. Thispolicy has done more to demoralize the politics of the country than allother causes combined; yet it is now the aim of patriotic andenlightened men to destroy its power and re-introduce that of Washingtonand Hamilton, and of all nations of political experience. Thecivil-service reform is now one of the main questions and issues ofAmerican legislation; but so bitterly is it opposed by venal politiciansthat I fear it cannot be made fully operative until the country demandsit as imperatively as the English did the passage of their Reform Bill. However, it has gained so much popular strength that both of theprominent political parties of the present time profess to favor it, andpromise to make it effective. 

It would be interesting to describe the animosities of the Federal andRepublican parties, which have since never been equalled in bitternessand rancor and fierceness, but I have not time. I am old enough toremember them, until they passed away with the administration ofGeneral Jackson, when other questions arose. With the struggle forascendency between these political parties, the public services ofHamilton closed. He resumed the practice of the law in New York, evenbefore the close of Washington's administration. He became the leader ofthe Bar, without making a fortune; for in those times lawyers did notknow how to charge, any more than city doctors. I doubt if his income asa lawyer ever reached $10, 000 a year; but he lived well, as most lawyersdo, even if they die poor. His house was the centre of hospitalities, and thither resorted the best society of the city, as well asdistinguished people from all parts of the country. 

Nor did his political influence decline after he had parted with power. He was a rare exception to most public men after their official life isended; and nothing so peculiarly marks a great man as the continuance ofinfluence with the absence of power; for influence and power aredistinct. Influence, in fact, never passes away, but power is ephemeral. Theologians, poets, philosophers, great writers, have influence and nopower; railroad kings and bank presidents have power but not necessarilyinfluence. Saint Augustine, in a little African town, had more influencethan the bishop of Rome. Rousseau had no power, but he created theFrench Revolution. Socrates revolutionized Greek philosophy, but hadnot power enough to save his life from unjust accusations. What aninfluence a great editor wields in these times, yet how little power hehas, unless he owns the journal he directs! What an influence wasenjoyed by a wise and able clergyman in New England one hundred yearsago, and which was impossible without force of character and greatwisdom! Hamilton had wisdom and force of character, and therefore hadgreat influence with his party after he retired from office. Most of ourpublic men retire to utter obscurity when they have lost office, butHamilton was as prominent in private life as in his official duties. Hewas the oracle of his party, a great political sage, whose utteranceshad the moral force of law. He never lost the leadership of his party, even when he retired from public life. His political influence lastedtill he died. He had no rewards to give, no office to fill, but he stillruled like a chieftain. It was he who defeated by his quiet influencethe political aspirations of Burr, when Burr was the most popular man inthe country, --a great wire-puller, a prince of politicians, a greatorganizer of political forces, like Van Buren and Thurlow Weed, --whoseeloquent conversation and fascinating manner few men could resist, tosay nothing of women. But for Hamilton, he would in all probability havebeen President of the United States, at a time when individual geniusand ability might not unreasonably aspire to that high office. He wasthe rival of Jefferson, and lost the election by only one vote, afterthe equality of candidates had thrown the election into the House ofRepresentatives. Hamilton did not like Jefferson, but he preferredJefferson to Burr, since he knew that the country would be safe underhis guidance, and would not be safe with so unscrupulous a man as Burr. He distrusted and disliked Burr; not because he was his rival at theBar, --for great rival lawyers may personally be good friends, likeBrougham and Lyndhurst, like Mason and Webster, --but because hispolitical integrity was not to be trusted; because he was a selfish andscheming politician, bent on personal advancement rather than the publicgood. And this hostility was returned with an unrelenting and savagefierceness, which culminated in deadly wrath when Burr found thatHamilton's influence prevented his election as Governor of NewYork, --which office, it seems, he preferred to the Vice-presidency, which had dignity but no power. Burr wanted power rather than influence. In his bitter disappointment and remorseless rage, nothing would satisfyhim but the blood of Hamilton. He picked a quarrel, and would acceptneither apology nor reconciliation; he wanted revenge. 

Hamilton knew he could not escape Burr's vengeance; that he must fightthe fatal duel, in obedience to that "code of honor" which hadtyrannically bound gentlemen since the feudal ages, though unknown toPagan Greece and Rome. There was no law or custom which would havewarranted a challenge from Aeschines to Demosthenes, when the former wasdefeated in the forensic and oratorical contest and sent intobanishment. But the necessity for Hamilton to fight his antagonist wassuch as he had not the moral power to resist, and that few other men inhis circumstances would have resisted. In the eyes of public men therewas no honorable way of escape. Life or death turned on his skill withthe pistol; and he knew that Burr, here, was his superior. So he madehis will, settled his affairs, and offered up his precious life; not tohis country, not to a great cause, not for great ideas and interests, but to avoid the stigma of society, --a martyr to a feudalconventionality. Such a man ought not to have fought; he should havebeen above a wicked social law. But why expect perfection? Who has notinfirmities, defects, and weaknesses? How few are beyond their age inits ideas; how few can resist the pressure of social despotism! Hamiltonerred by our highest standard, but not when judged by the circumstancesthat surrounded him. The greatest living American died really by anassassin's hand, since the murderer was animated with revenge andhatred. The greatest of our statesmen passed away in a miserable duel;yet ever to be venerated for his services and respected for his generalcharacter, for his integrity, patriotism, every gentlemanlyquality, --brave, generous, frank, dignified, sincere, and affectionatein his domestic relations. 

His death, on the 11th of July, 1804, at the early age offorty-seven, --the age when Bacon was made Lord Chancellor, the age whenmost public men are just beginning to achieve fame, --was justly anduniversally regarded as a murder; not by the hand of a fanatic orlunatic, but by the deliberately malicious hand of the Vice-President ofthe United States, and a most accomplished man. It was a cold, intended, and atrocious murder, which the pulpit and the press equally denouncedin most unmeasured terms of reprobation, and with mingled grief andwrath. It created so profound an impression on the public mind thatduelling as a custom could no longer stand so severe a rebuke, and itpractically passed away, --at least at the North. 

And public indignation pursued the murderer, though occupying the secondhighest political office in the country. He paid no insignificantpenalty for his crime. He never anticipated such a retribution. He wasobliged to flee; he became an exile and a wanderer in foreignlands, --poor, isolated, shunned. He was doomed to eternal ignominy; henever recovered even political power and influence; he did not receiveeven adequate patronage as a lawyer. He never again reigned in society, though he never lost his fascination as a talker. He was a ruined man, in spite of services and talents and social advantages; and nowhitewashing can ever change the verdict of good men in this country. Aaron Burr fell, --like Lucifer, like a star from heaven, --and never canrise again in the esteem of his countrymen; no time can wipe away hisdisgrace. His is a blasted name, like that of Benedict Arnold. And herelet me say, that great men, although they do not commit crimes, cannotescape the penalty of even defects and vices that some consider venial. No position however lofty, no services however great, no talents howeverbrilliant, will enable a man to secure lasting popularity and influencewhen respect for his moral character is undermined; ultimately he willfall. He may have defects, he may have offensive peculiarities, andretain position and respect, for everybody has faults; but if his moralcharacter is bad, nothing can keep him long on the elevation to which hehas climbed, --no political friendships, no remembrance of services anddeeds. If such a man as Bacon fell from his high estate for takingbribes, --although bribery was a common vice among the public charactersof his day, --how could Burr escape ignominy for the murder of thegreatest statesman of his age?

Yet Hamilton lives, although the victim of his rival. He lives in thenation's heart, which cannot forget his matchless services. He is stillthe admiration of our greatest statesmen; he is revered, as Webster is, by jurists and enlightened patriots. _No_ statesman superior to him haslived in this great country. He was a man who lived in the pursuit oftruth, and in the realm of great ideas; who hated sophistries and lies, and sought to base government on experience and wisdom. 

 "Great were the boons which this pure patriot gave, Doomed by his rival to an early grave; A nation's tears upon that grave were shed. Oh, could the nation by his truths be led! Then of a land, enriched from sea to sea, Would other realms its earnest following be, And the lost ages of the world restore Those golden ages which the bards adore. "

AUTHORITIES. 

Hamilton's Works; Life of Alexander Hamilton, by J. T. Morse, Jr. ; Lifeand Times of Hamilton, by S. M. Smucker; W. Coleman's Collection ofFacts on the Death of Hamilton; J. G. Baldwin's Party Leaders; Dawson'sCorrespondence with Jay; Bancroft's History of the United States;Parton's Life and Times of Aaron Burr; Eulogies, by H. G. Otis and Dr. Nott; The Federalist; Lives of Contemporaneous Statesmen; Sparks's Lifeof Washington. 

JOHN ADAMS. 

1735-1826. 

CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMANSHIP. 

The Adams family--on the whole the most illustrious in New England, ifwe take into view the ability, the patriotism, and the high officeswhich it has held from the Revolutionary period--cannot be called ofpatrician descent, neither can it viewed as peculiarly plebeian. Thefounder was a small farmer in the town of Braintree, of theMassachusetts Colony, as far back as 1636, whose whole property did notamount to £100. His immediate descendants were famous and sturdyPuritans, characterized by their thrift and force of character. 

The father of John Adams, who died in 1761, had an estate amounting tonearly £1, 500, and could afford to give a college education at Harvardto his eldest son, John, who was graduated in 1755, at the age oftwenty, with the reputation of being a good scholar, but by no meansdistinguished in his class of twenty-four members. He cared more forrural sports than for books. Following the custom of farmers' sons, onleaving college he kept a school at Worcester before he began hisprofessional studies. His parents wished him to become a minister, buthe had no taste for theology, and selected the profession of law. 

At that period there were few eminent lawyers in New England, nor wasthere much need of them, their main business being the collection ofdebts. They were scarcely politicians, since few political questionswere agitated outside of parish disputes. Nor had lawyers opportunitiesof making fortunes when there were no merchant-princes, no grindingmonopolies or large corporations, and no great interest outside ofagricultural life; when riches were about equally distributed amongfarmers, mechanics, sailors, and small traders. Young men contemplatinga profession generally studied privately with those who were prominentin their respective callings for two or three years after leavingcollege, and were easily admitted to the bar, or obtained a license topreach, with little expectation of ever becoming rich except byparsimonious saving. 

With our modern views, life in Colonial times naturally seems to havebeen dull and monotonous, with few amusements and almost no travel, noart, not many luxuries, and the utter absence of what are called"modern improvements. " But if life at that time is more closelyscrutinized we find in it all the elements of ordinary pleasure, --thesame family ties, the same "loves and wassellings, " the same convivialcircles, the same aspirations for distinction, as in more favoredcivilizations. If luxuries were limited, people lived in comfortablehouses, sat around their big wood-fires, kept up at small cost, and hadall the necessities of life, --warm clothing, even if spun and woven anddyed at home, linen in abundance, fresh meat at most seasons of theyear, with the unstinted products of the farm at all seasons, and eventea and coffee, wines and spirits, at moderate cost; so that the NewEnglanders of the eighteenth century could look back with complacencyand gratitude on the days when the Pilgrim Fathers first landed andsettled in the dreary wilderness, feeling that the "lines had fallen tothem in pleasant places, " and yet be unmindful that even the originalsettlers, with all their discomforts and dangers and privations, enjoyedthat inward peace and lofty spiritual life in comparison with which allmaterial luxuries are transient and worthless. It is only the divinecertitudes, which can exist under any external circumstances, that areof much account in our estimate of human happiness, and it is thesewhich ordinarily escape the attention of historians when they paint thecondition of society. Our admiration and our pity are alike wasted whenwe turn our eyes to the outward condition of our rural ancestors, solong as we have reason to believe that their souls were jubilant withthe benedictions of Heaven; and this joy of theirs is especiallynoticeable when they are surrounded with perils and hardships. 

Such was the state of society when John Adams appeared on the politicalstage. There were but few rich men in New England, --like John Hancockand John Langdon, both merchants, --and not many who were very poor. Thepopulation consisted generally of well-to-do farmers, shopkeepers, mechanics, and fishermen, with a sprinkling of lawyers and doctors andministers, most of whom were compelled to practise the severest economy, and all of whom were tolerably educated and familiar with the principleson which their rights and liberties rested. Usually they werelaw-abiding, liberty-loving citizens, with a profound veneration forreligious institutions, and contentment with their lot. There was nohankering for privileges or luxuries which were never enjoyed, and ofwhich they never heard. As we read the histories of cities or states, inantiquity or in modern times, we are struck with their similarity, inall ages and countries, in everything which pertains to domesticpleasures, to religious life, to ordinary passions and interests, andthe joys and sorrows of the soul. Homer and Horace, Chaucer andShakespeare, dwell on the same things, and appeal to the samesentiments. 

So John Adams the orator worked on the same material, substantially, that our orators and statesmen do at the present day, and that allfuture orators will work upon to the end of time, --on the passions, theinterests, and the aspirations which are eternally the same, unless keptdown by grinding despotism or besotted ignorance, as in Egypt ormediaeval Europe, and even then the voice of humanity finds entrance tothe heart and soul. "All men, " said Rousseau, "are born equal;" and bothAdams and Jefferson built up their system of government upon thisequality of rights, if not of condition, and defended it by an appeal tohuman consciousness, --the same in all ages and countries. In regard tothese elemental rights we are no more enlightened now than our fatherswere a hundred years ago, except as they were involved in the questionof negro slavery. When, therefore, Adams began his career as a politicalorator, it was of no consequence whether men were rich or poor, orwhether the country was advanced or backward in material civilization. He spoke to the heart and the soul of man, as Garrison and Sumner andLincoln spoke on other issues, but involving the same establishedprinciples. 

Little could John Adams have divined his own future influence and famewhen, as a boy on his father's farm in Braintree, he toiled in rural andcommonplace drudgeries, or when he was an undistinguished student atHarvard or a schoolmaster in a country village. It was not untilpolitical agitations aroused the public mind that a new field was opento him, congenial to his genius. 

Still, even when he boarded with his father, a sturdy Puritan, at thetime he began the practice of the law at the age of twenty-three, he hadhis aspirations. Writes he in his diary, "Chores, chat, tobacco, apples, tea, steal away my time, but I am resolved to translate Justinian;" andyet on his first legal writ he made a failure for lack of concentratedeffort. "My thoughts, " he said, "are roving from girls to friends, fromfriends to court, and from court to Greece and Rome, "--showing thatenthusiastic, versatile temperament which then and afterwardscharacterized him. 

Not long after that, he had given up Justinian. "You may get more bystudying town-meetings and training-days, " he writes. "Popularity is theway to gain and figure. " These extracts give no indication oflegal ambition. 

But in 1761 the political horizon was overcast. There were difficultieswith Great Britain. James Otis had made a great speech, which Adamsheard, on what were called "writs of assistance, " giving power to theEnglish officers of customs in the Colony to enter houses and stores tosearch for smuggled goods. This remarkable speech made a deep impressionon the young lawyer, and kindled fires which were never extinguished. Hesaw injustice, and a violation of the rights of English subjects, as allthe Colonists acknowledged themselves to be, and he revolted frominjustice and tyranny. This was the turning-point of his life; he becamea patriot and politician. This, however, was without neglecting his lawbusiness, which soon grew upon his hands, for he could make a speech andaddress juries. Eloquence was his gift. He was a born orator, likePatrick Henry. 

In 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which produced great agitationin New England, and Adams was fired with the prevailing indignation. Hiswhole soul went forth in angry protest. He argued its injustice beforeGovernor Bernard, who, however, was resolved to execute it as the law. Adams was equally resolved to prevent its execution, and appealed to thepeople in burning words of wrath. Chief-Justice Hutchinson sided withthe Governor, and prevented the opening of the courts and all businesstransactions without stamps. This decision crippled business, and therewas great distress on account of it; but Adams cared less for theinjury to people's pockets than for the violation of rights, --_taxationwithout representation;_ and in his voice and that of other impassionedorators this phrase became the key-note of the Revolution. 

English taxation of the Colonies was not oppressive, but was felt to beunjust and unconstitutional, --an entering-wedge to future exactions, towhich the people were resolved not to submit. They had no idea ofseparation from England, but, like John Hampden, they would resist anunlawful tax, no matter what the consequences. Fortunately, theseconsequences were not then foreseen. The opposition of the Colonies totaxation without their own consent was a pure outburst of that spirit ofliberty which was born in German forests, and in England grew into MagnaCharta, and ripened into the English Revolution. It was a turbulentpopular protest. That was all, at first, and John Adams fanned thediscontent, with his cousin, Samuel Adams, a greater agitator even thanhe, resembling Wendell Phillips in his acrimony, boldness, and power ofdenunciation. The country was aroused from end to end. The "Sons ofLiberty" societies of Massachusetts spread to Maryland; the Virginiansboldly passed declarations of rights; the merchants of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston resolved to import no English goods; and nineof the Colonies sent delegates to a protesting Convention in New York. In 1766 the Stamp Act was repealed because it could not be enforced; butParliament refused to concede its right of taxation, and there was aprospect of more trouble. 

John Adams soon passed to the front rank of the patriotic party inMassachusetts. He was eloquent and he was honest. His popularity inMassachusetts Bay was nearly equal to that of Patrick Henry in Virginia, who was even more vehement. The Tories looked upon Adams pretty much asthe descendants of the old Federalists looked upon William LloydGarrison when he began the anti-slavery agitation, --as a dangerous man, a fanatical reformer. The presence of such a leader was now needed inBoston, and in 1768 Adams removed to that excitable town, which wasalways ready to adopt progressive views. Soon after, two Britishregiments landed in the town, and occupied the public buildings with theview of overawing and restraining the citizens, especially in theenforcement of customs duties on certain imported articles. This was anew and worse outrage, but no collision took place between the troopsand the people till the memorable "Boston Massacre" on the 5th of March, 1770, when several people were killed and wounded, which increased thepopular indignation. It now looked as if the English governmentintended to treat the Bostonians as rebels, to coerce them by armed men, to frighten them into submission to all its unwise measures. What afortunate thing was that infatuation on the part of English ministers!The independence of the Colonies might have been delayed forhalf-a-century but for the stupidity and obstinacy of George III andhis advisers. 

By this time John Adams began to see the logical issue of Englishpersistency in taxation. He saw that it would lead to war, and hetrembled in view of the tremendous consequences of a war with themother-country, from which the Colonies had not yet sought a separation. 

Adams was now not only in the front rank of the patriotic party, aleader of the people, but had reached eminence as a lawyer. He was atthe head of the Massachusetts bar. In addition he had become a member ofthe legislature, second to no one in influence. But his arduous laborstold upon his health, and he removed to Braintree, where he lived forsome months, riding into Boston every day. With restored health fromout-door exercise, he returned again to Boston in 1772, purchased ahouse in Queen Street, opposite the court-house, and renewed his lawbusiness, now grown so large that he resigned his seat in thelegislature. Politics, however, absorbed his soul, and stirring timeswere at hand. 

In every seaport--Charleston, Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston--the people were refusing to receive the newly-taxed tea. On the17th of December, 1773, three shiploads of tea were destroyed in Bostonharbor by a number of men dressed as Indians. Adams approved of thisbold and defiant act, sure to complicate the relations with GreatBritain. In his heart Adams now desired this, as tending to bring aboutthe independence of the Colonies. He believed that the Americans, afterten years of agitation, were strong enough to fight; he wanted nofurther conciliation. But he did not as yet openly declare his views. In1774 General Gage was placed at the head of the British military forcein Boston, and the port was closed. The legislature, overawed by thetroops, removed to Salem, and then chose five men as delegates to theGeneral Congress about to assemble in Philadelphia. John Adams was oneof these delegates, and associated with him were Samuel Adams, ThomasCushing, James Bowdoin, and Robert Treat Paine. 

All historians unite in their praises of this memorable assembly, ascomposed of the picked men of the country. At the meeting of thisCongress began the career of John Adams as a statesman. Until then hehad been a mere politician, but honest, bold, and talented, in abilitiessecond to no one in the country, ranking alone with Jefferson ingeneral influence, --certainly the foremost man in Massachusetts. 

But it was the vehemence of his patriotism and his inspiring eloquencewhich brought Adams to the front, rather than his legal reputation. Hewas not universally admired or loved. He had no tact. His temper wasirascible, jealous, and impatient; his manners were cold, like those ofall his descendants, and his vanity was inordinate. Every biographer hasadmitted his egotism, and jealousy even of Franklin and Washington. Everybody had confidence in his honesty, his integrity, his privatevirtues, his abilities, and patriotism. These exalted traits were nomore doubted than the same in Washington. But if he had more brain-powerthan Washington he had not that great leader's prudence, nor good sense, nor patience, nor self-command, nor unerring instinct in judging men andpower of guiding them. 

One reason, perhaps, why Adams was not so conciliatory as Jefferson wasinclined to be toward England was that he had gone too far to bepardoned. He was the most outspoken and violent of all the early leadersof rebellion except his cousin, Samuel Adams. He was detested by royalgovernors and the English government. But his ardent temperament and hisprofound convictions furnish a better reason for his course. All thepopular leaders were of course alive to the probable personalconsequences if their cause should not succeed; but fear of personalconsequences was the feeblest of their motives in persistent efforts forindependence. They were inspired by a loftier sentiment than that, evenan exalted patriotism. It burned in every speech they made, and in everyconversation in which they took part. If they had not the spirit ofmartyrdom, they had the spirit of self-devotion to a noble cause. Theysaw clearly enough the sacrifices they would be required to make, andthe calamities which would overwhelm the land. But these were nothing tothe triumph of their cause. Of this final triumph none of the greatleaders of the Revolution doubted. They felt the impossibility ofsubduing a nation determined to be free, by such forces as England couldsend across the ocean. Battles might be lost, like those of William theSilent, but if the Dutch could overflow their dikes, the Americans, as alast resort, could seek shelter in their forests. The Americans weresurely not behind the Dutch in the capacity of suffering, although to mymind their cause was not so precious as that of the Hollanders, who hadnot only to fight against overwhelming forces, but to preserve religiousas well as civil liberties. The Dutch fought for religion andself-preservation; the Americans, to resist a tax which nearly allEngland thought it had a right to impose, and which was by no meansburdensome, --a mooted question in the highest courts of law; at bottom, however, it was not so much to resist a tax as to gain nationalindependence that the Americans fought. It was the Anglo-Saxon love ofself-government. 

And who could blame them for resisting foreign claims to the boundlessterritories and undeveloped resources of the great country in which theyhad settled forever? The real motive of the enlightened statesmen of theday was to make the Colonies free from English legislation, Englisharmies, and English governors, that they might develop theircivilization in their own way. The people whom they led may have justlyfeared the suppression of their rights and liberties; but far-sightedstatesmen had also other ends in view, not to be talked about intown-meetings or even legislative halls. As Abraham of old cast hisinspired vision down the vista of ages and saw his seed multiplying likethe sands of the sea, and all the countries and nations of the worldgradually blest by the fulfilment of the promise made to him, so thefounders of our republic looked beyond the transient sufferings andmiseries of a conflict with their mother-country, to the unboundedresources which were sure to be developed on every river and in everyvalley of the vast wilderness yet to be explored, and to the teemingpopulations which were to arise and to be blessed by the enjoyment ofthose precious privileges and rights for which they were about to takeup the sword. They may not have anticipated so rapid a progress inagriculture, in wealth, in manufactures, in science, in literature andart, as has taken place within one hundred years, to the astonishmentand admiration of all mankind; but they saw that American progress wouldbe steady, incalculable, immeasurable, unchecked and ever advancing, until their infant country should number more favored people than anynation which history records, unconquerable by any foreign power, andnever to pass away except through the prevalence of such vices asdestroyed the old Roman world. 

With this encouragement, statesmen like Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, were ready to risk everything and make anysacrifice to bring about the triumph of their cause, --a cause infinitelygreater than that which was advocated by Pitt, or fought for byWellington. Their eyes rested on the future of America, and the greatmen who were yet to be born. They well could say, in the language of anorator more eloquent than any of them, as he stood on Plymouth Rockin 1820:--

"Advance, then, ye future generations! We would hail you, as you rise inyour long succession to fill the places which we now fill. .. . We bid youwelcome to the healthy skies and the verdant fields of New England. Wegreet your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed. Wewelcome you to the blessings of good government and religious liberty. We welcome you to the treasures of science, and the delights oflearning. We welcome you to the transcendent sweets of domestic life, tothe happiness of kindred, and parents, and children. We welcome you tothe immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope ofChristianity, and the light of everlasting truth!"

John Adams, whose worth and services Daniel Webster, six years afteruttering those words, pointed out in Fanueil Hall when the old statesmandied, was probably the most influential member of the ContinentalCongress, after Washington, since he was its greatest orator and itsmost impassioned character. He led the Assembly, as Henry Clayafterwards led the Senate, and Canning led the House of Commons, by thatinspired logic which few could resist. Jefferson spoke of him as "thecolossus of debate. " It is the fashion in these prosaic times toundervalue congressional and parliamentary eloquence, as a vainoratorical display; but it is this which has given power to the greatestleaders of mankind in all free governments, --as illustrated by thecareer of such men as Demosthenes, Pericles, Cicero, Chatham, Fox, Mirabeau, Webster, and Clay; and it is rarely called out except in greatnational crises, amid the storms of passion and agitating ideas. Jefferson affected to sneer at it, as exhibited by Patrick Henry; buttake away eloquence from his own writings and they would be commonplace. All productions of the human intellect are soon forgotten unless infusedwith sentiments which reach the heart, or excite attention by vividnessof description, or the brilliancy which comes from art or imagination orpassion. Who reads a prosaic novel, or a history of dry details, if everso accurate? How few can listen with interest to a speech of statisticalinformation, if ever so useful, --unless illuminated by the oratoricalgenius of a Gladstone! True eloquence is a gift, as rare as poetry; aninspiration allied with genius; an electrical power without which fewpeople can be roused, either to reflection or action. This electricalpower both the Adamses had, as remarkably as Whitefield or Beecher. Noone can tell exactly what it is, whether it is physical, or spiritual, or intellectual; but certain it is that a speaker will not be listenedto without it, either in a legislative hall, or in the pulpit, or on theplatform. And hence eloquence, wherever displayed, is really a greatpower, and will remain so to the end of time. 

At the first session of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, in1774, although it was composed of the foremost men in the country, verylittle was done, except to recommend to the different provinces thenon-importation of British goods, with a view of forcing England intoconciliatory measures; at which British statesmen laughed. The onlyresult of this self-denying ordinance was to compel people to wearhomespun and forego tea and coffee and other luxuries, while little wasgained, except to excite the apprehension of English merchants. Yet thiswas no small affair in America, for we infer from the letters of JohnAdams to his wife that the habits of the wealthy citizens ofPhiladelphia were even then luxurious, much more so than in Boston. Weread of a dinner given to Adams and other delegates by a young Quakerlawyer, at which were served ducks, hams, chickens, beef, pig, tarts, cream, custards, jellies, trifles, floating islands, beer, porter, punch, wine, and a long list of other things. All such indulgences, andmany others, the earnest men and women of that day undertook cheerfullyto deny themselves. 

Adams returned these civilities by dining a party on salt fish, --perhapsas a rebuke to the costly entertainments with which he was surfeited, and which seemed to him unseasonable in "times that tried men's souls. "But when have Philadelphia Quakers disdained what is called good living?

Adams, at first delighted with the superior men he met, before long wasimpatient with the deliberations of the Congress, and severelycriticised the delegates. "Every man, " wrote he, "upon every occasionmust show his oratory, his criticism, and his political abilities. Theconsequence of this is that business is drawn and spun out to animmeasurable length. I believe, if it was moved and seconded that weshould come to a resolution that three and two make five, we should beentertained with logic and rhetoric, law, history, politics, andmathematics; and then--we should pass the resolution unanimously in theaffirmative. These great wits, these subtle critics, these refinedgeniuses, these learned lawyers, these wise statesmen, are so fond ofshowing their parts and powers as to make their consultations verytedious. Young Ned Rutledge is a perfect bob-o-lincoln, --a swallow, asparrow, a peacock; excessively vain, excessively weak, and excessivelyvariable and unsteady, jejune, inane, and puerile. " Sharp words these!This session of Congress resulted in little else than the interchange ofopinions between Northern and Southern statesmen. It was a mere advisorybody, useful, however, in preparing the way for a union of the Coloniesin the coming contest. It evidently did not "mean business, " and"business" was what Adams wanted, rather than a vain display ofabilities without any practical purpose. 

The second session of the Congress was not much more satisfactory. Itdid, however, issue a Declaration of Rights, a protest against astanding army in the Colonies, a recommendation of commercialnon-intercourse with Great Britain, and, as a conciliatory measure, apetition to the king, together with elaborate addresses to the people ofCanada, of Great Britain, and of the Colonies. All this talk was ofvalue as putting on record the reasonableness of the American position:but practically it accomplished nothing, for, even during the session, the political and military commotion in Massachusetts increased; thepatriotic stir of defence was evident all over the country; and inApril, 1775, before the second Continental Congress assembled (May 10)Concord and Lexington had fired the mine, and America rushed to arms. The other members were not as eager for war as Adams was. John Dickinsonof Pennsylvania--wealthy, educated moderate, conservative--was forsending another petition to England, which utterly disgusted Adams, whonow had faith only in ball-cartridges, and all friendly intercourseended between the countries. But Dickinson's views prevailed by a smallmajority, which chafed and hampered Adams, whose earnest preference wasfor the most vigorous measures. He would seize all the officers of theCrown; he would declare the Colonies free and independent at once; hewould frankly tell Great Britain that they were determined to seekalliances with France and Spain if the war should be continued; hewould organize an army and appoint its generals. The Massachusettsmilitia were already besieging the British in Boston; the war hadactually begun. Hence he moved in Congress the appointment of ColonelGeorge Washington, of Virginia, as commander-in-chief, --much to themortification of John Hancock, president of the Congress, whose vanityled him to believe that he himself was the most fitting man for thatimportant post. 

In moving for this appointment, Adams ran some risk that it would not beagreeable to New England people, who knew very little of Washingtonaside from his having been a military man, and one generally esteemed;but Adams was willing to run the risk in order to precipitate thecontest which he knew to be inevitable. He knew further that if Congresswould but, as he phrased it, "adopt the army before Boston" and appointColonel Washington commander of it, the appointment would cement theunion of the Colonies, --his supreme desire. New England and Virginiawere thus leagued in one, and that by the action of all the Colonies inCongress assembled. 

Although Mr. Adams had been elected chief-justice of Massachusetts, asits ablest lawyer, he could not be spared from the labors of Congress. He was placed on the most important committees, among others on one toprepare a resolution in favor of instructing the Colonies to favorState governments, and, later on, the one to draft the Declaration ofIndependence, with Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman, and Livingston. Thespecial task was assigned to Jefferson, not only because he was ablewith his pen, but because Adams was too outspoken, too imprudent, andtoo violent to be trusted in framing such a document. Nothing could curbhis tongue. He severely criticised most every member of Congress, if notopenly, at least in his confidential letters; while in his publicefforts with tongue and pen he showed more power than discretion. 

At that time Thomas Paine appeared in America as a political writer, andhis florid pamphlet on "Common Sense" was much applauded by the people. Adams's opinion of this irreligious republican is not favorable: "Thatpart of 'Common Sense' which relates to independence is clearly written, but I am bold enough to say there is not a fact nor a reason stated init which has not been frequently urged in Congress, " while "hisarguments from the Old Testament to prove the unlawfulness of monarchyare ridiculous. "

The most noteworthy thing connected with Adams's career of four years inCongress was his industry. During that time he served on at least onehundred committees, and was always at the front in debating measures ofconsequence. Perhaps his most memorable service was the share he had indrawing the Articles of Confederation, although he left Philadelphiabefore his signature could be attached. This instrument had great effectin Europe, since the States proclaimed union as well as independence. Itwas thenceforward easier for the States to borrow money, although theConfederation was loose-jointed and essentially temporary; nationalitywas not established until the Constitution was adopted. Adams not onlyguided the earliest attempts at union at home, but was charged withgreat labors in connection with foreign relations, while as head of theWar Board he had enough both of work and of worry to have broken down astronger man. Always and everywhere he was doing valuable work. 

On the mismanagement of Silas Deane, as an American envoy in Paris, itbecame necessary to send an abler man in his place, and John Adams wasselected, though he was not distinguished for diplomatic tact. Nor couldhis mission be called in all respects a success. He was too imprudent inspeech, and was not, like Franklin, conciliatory with the Frenchminister of Foreign Affairs, who took a cordial dislike to him, and evensnubbed him. But then it was Adams who penetrated the secret motives ofthe Count de Vergennes in rendering aid to America, which Franklin wouldnot believe, or could not see. Nor were the relations of Adams verypleasant with the veteran Franklin himself, whose merits he conceived tobe exaggerated, and of whom it is generally believed he was envious. Hewas as fussy in business details as Franklin was easy and careless. Hethought that Franklin lived too luxuriously and was too fond of thepraises of women. 

In 1780 Adams transferred his residence to Amsterdam in order to securethe recognition of independence, and to get loans from Dutch merchants;but he did not meet with much success until the surrender of LordCornwallis virtually closed the war. He then returned to Paris, in 1782, to assist Franklin and Jay to arrange the treaty of peace with GreatBritain, and the acknowledgment of the independence of the States; andhere his steady persistency, united with the clear discernment of Jay, obtained important concessions in reference to the fisheries, thenavigation of the Mississippi, and American commerce. 

Adams never liked France, as Franklin and Jefferson did. The Frenchseemed to him shallow, insincere, egotistical, and swayed by fancifultheories. Ardent as was his love of liberty, he distrusted the FrenchRevolution, and had no faith in its leaders. Nor was he a zealousrepublican. He saw more in the English Constitution to admire thanAmericans generally did; although, while he respected Englishinstitutions, he had small liking for Englishmen, as they had for him. In truth, he was a born grumbler, and a censorious critic. He did notlike anybody very much, except his wife, and, beyond his domesticcircle, saw more faults than virtues in those with whom he wasassociated. Even with his ardent temperament he had not those warmfriendships which marked Franklin and Jefferson. 

John Adams found his residence abroad rather irksome and unpleasant, andhe longed to return to his happy home. But his services as a diplomatistwere needed in England. No more suitable representative of the youngrepublic, it was thought, could be found, in spite of his impatience, restlessness, pugnacity, imprudence, and want of self-control; for hewas intelligent, shrewd, high-spirited, and quick-sighted. Thediplomatists could not stand before his blunt directness, and hegenerally carried his point by eloquence and audacity. His presence wascommanding, and he impressed everybody by his magnetism and brainpower. So Congress, in 1785, appointed him minister to Great Britain. The Kingforced himself to receive Adams graciously in his closet, but afterwardshe treated him even with rudeness; and of course the social circles ofLondon did the same. The minister soon found his position moreuncomfortable even than it had been in Paris. His salary, also, was toosmall to support his rank like other ambassadors, and he was obliged toeconomize. He represented a league rather than a nation, --a league toopoor and feeble to pay its debts, and he had to endure many insults onthat account. Nor could he understand the unfriendly spirit with whichhe was received. He had hoped that England would have forgotten herhumiliation, but discovered his error when he learned that the Stateswere to be indirectly crushed and hampered by commercial restrictionsand open violations of the law of nations. England being still in astate of irritation toward her former colonies, he was not treated withbecoming courtesy, and of course had no social triumphs such as Franklinhad enjoyed at Paris. Finding that he could not accomplish what he haddesired and hoped for, he became disgusted, possibly embittered, andsent in his resignation, after a three years' residence in London, andreturned home. Altogether, his career as a diplomatist was not a greatsuccess; his comparative failure, however, was caused rather by thedifficulties he had to surmount than by want of diplomatic skill. If hewas not as successful as had been hoped, he returned with unsulliedreputation. He had made no great mistakes, and had proved himselfhonest, incorruptible, laborious, and patriotic. The country appreciatedhis services, when, under the new Constitution, the consolidated Unionchose its rulers, and elevated him to the second office in the republic. 

The only great flaw in Adams as Vice-President was his strange jealousyof Washington, --a jealousy hardly to be credited were it not for theuniform testimony of historians. But then in public estimation he stoodsecond only to the "Father of his Country. " He stood even higher thanHamilton, between whom and himself there were unpleasant relations. Indeed, Adams's dislike of both Hamilton and Jefferson was to someextent justified by unmistakable evidences of enmity on their part. Therivalries and jealousies among the great leaders of the revolutionaryperiod are a blot on our history. But patriots and heroes as those menwere, they were all human; and Adams was peculiarly so. By universalconsent he is conceded to have been a prime factor in the success of theRevolution. He held back Congress when reconciliation was in the air; hecommitted the whole country to the support of New England, and gave tothe war its indispensable condition of success, --the leadership ofWashington; he was called by Jefferson "the Colossus of debate incarrying the Declaration of Independence" and cutting loose fromEngland; he was wise and strong and indefatigable in governmentalconstruction, as well as in maintaining the armies in the field; heaccomplished vast labors affecting both the domestic and foreignrelations of the country, and, despite his unpleasant personal qualitiesof conceit and irritability, his praise was in every mouth. He couldwell afford to recognize the full worth of every one of his co-laborers. But he did not. Magnanimity was certainly not his most prominent trait. 

The duties of a vice-president hardly allow scope for great abilities. The office is only a stepping-stone. There was little opportunity toengage in the debates which agitated the country. The duties ofjudicially presiding over the Senate are not congenial to a man of thehot temper and ambition of Adams; and when party lines were drawnbetween the Federalists and Republicans he earnestly espoused theprinciples of the former. He was in no sense a democrat except in hisrecognition of popular political rights. He believed in the rule ofcharacter, as indicated by intellect and property. He had no greatsympathy with the people in their aspirations, although springing fromthe people himself, --the son of a moderate farmer, no more distinguishedthan ordinary farmers. He was the first one of his family to reacheminence or wealth. The accusation against him of wishing to introduce aking, lords, and commons was most unjust; but he was at heart anaristocrat, as much as were Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris. And the morehis character was scrutinized after he had won distinction, the lesspopular he was. His brightest days were when he was inspiring hiscountrymen by his eloquence to achieve their independence. 

In office Adams did not pre-eminently shine, notwithstanding hisexecutive ability and business habits. It is true, the equal division ofthe Senate on some very important measures, such as the power of thePresident to remove from office without the consent of the Senate, themonetary policy proposed by Hamilton, and some others, gave him theopportunity by his casting vote to sustain the administration, and thusdecide great principles with advantage to the country. And his eightyears of comparative quiet in that position were happy and restful ones. But Adams loved praise, flattery, and social position. He was easilypiqued, and quickly showed it. He did not pass for what he was worth, since he was apt to show his worst side first, without tact and withoutpolicy. But no one ever doubted his devotion to the country any morethan his abilities. Moreover, he was too fond of titles, and thetrappings of office and the insignia of rank, to be a favorite withplain people, --not from personal vanity, great as that was in him, butfrom his notions of the dignities of high office, such as he had seenabroad. Hence he recommended to Washington the etiquette of a court, andkept it up himself when he became president. Against this must beplaced his fondness for leaving the capital and running off to makelittle visits to his farm at Quincy, Massachusetts, where he wasalways happiest. 

I dwell briefly on his career as Vice-President because he had in it solittle to do. Nor was his presidency marked by great events, when, uponthe completion of Washington's second term, and the refusal of thatgreat man to enter upon a third, Adams was elevated in 1797 to thehighest position. The country had settled down to its normal pursuits. There were few movements to arrest the attention of historians. 

The most important event of the time was, doubtless, the formation ofthe two great political parties which divided the nation, one led byHamilton and the other by Jefferson. They were the natural developmentof the discussion on adopting the Federal Constitution. The Federalists, composed chiefly of the professional classes, the men of wealth and ofsocial position, and the old officers of the army, wanted a strongcentral government, protection to infant manufactures, banks andtariffs, --in short, whatever would contribute to the ascendency ofintellect and property; the Republicans, largely made up of smallfarmers, mechanics, and laboring people, desired the extension of theright of suffrage, the prosperity of agriculturists, and Stateascendency, and were fearful of the encroachments of the generalgovernment upon the reserved rights of the States and the peopleat large. 

But the leaders of this "people's party, " men like the Clintons of theState of New York, were sometimes as aristocratic in their social lifeas the leaders of the Federalists. During the Revolutionary War the onlyparties were those who aimed at national independence, and theRoyalists, or Tories, who did not wish to sever their connection withthe mother-country; but these Tories had no political influence when thegovernment was established under Washington. During his first term ofoffice there was ostensibly but one party. It was not until his secondterm that there were marked divisions. Then public opinion was dividedbetween those who followed Hamilton, Jay, and Adams, and those wholooked up to Jefferson, and perhaps Madison, as leaders in the lines tobe pursued by the general government in reference to banks, internalimprovements, commercial tariffs, the extension of the suffrage, thearmy and navy, and other subjects. 

The quarrels and animosities between these two parties in that early dayhave never been exceeded in bitterness. Ministers preached politicalsermons; the newspapers indulged in unrestricted abuse of public men. The air was full of political slanders, lies, and misrepresentations. Family ties were sundered, and old friendships were broken. TheFederalists were distrustful of the French Revolution, and, finally, hostile to it, while the Republican-Democrats were its violentadvocates. In New York nearly every Episcopalian was a Federalist, andin Massachusetts and Connecticut nearly every Congregational minister. Freethinkers in religion were generally Democrats, as the partygradually came to be called. Farmers were pretty evenly divided; buttheir "hired hands" were Democrats, and so were most immigrants. 

Whatever the difference of opinion among the contending parties, however, they were sincere and earnest, and equally patriotic. Thepeople selected for office those whom they deemed most capable, or thosewho would be most useful to the parties representing their politicalviews. It never occurred to the people of either party to vote with theview of advancing their own selfish and private interests. If it wasproposed to erect a public building, or dig a canal, or construct anaqueduct, they would vote for or against it according to their notionsof public utility. They never dreamed of the spoils of jobbery. In otherwords, the contractors and "bosses" did not say to the people, "If youwill vote for me as the superintendent of this public improvement, Iwill employ you on the works, whether you are industrious and capable, or idle and worthless. " There were then no Tammany Hall politicians orPhiladelphia Republican ringsters. The spoils system was unknown. Thatis an invention of later times. Politicians did not seek office with aview of getting rich. Both Federalists and Democrats sought office tosecure either the ascendency of their party or what they deemed thewelfare of the country. 

As the Democratic leaders made appeals to a larger constituency, consisting of the laboring classes, than the Federalists did, theygradually gained the ascendency. Moreover, they were more united. TheFederal leaders quarrelled among themselves. Adams and Hamilton wereaccused of breaking up their party. Jefferson adhered to his earlyprinciples, and looked upon the advance of democratic power as thelogical result of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Hehad unlimited faith in the instincts and aspirations of the people, andin their ability to rule themselves, while Adams thought that the masseswere not able to select their wisest and greatest men for rulers. Thelatter would therefore restrict the suffrage to men of property andeducation, while Jefferson would give it to every citizen, whether pooror rich, learned or ignorant. 

With such conflicting views between these great undoubted patriots andstatesmen, there were increasing alienations, ripening into bitterhostilities. If Adams was the more profound statesman, according toold-fashioned ideas, basing government on the lessons of experience andhistory, Jefferson was the more astute and far-reaching politician, foreseeing the increasing ascendency of democratic principles. One wouldsuppose that Adams, born on a New England farm, and surrounded withPuritan influences, would have had more sympathy with the people thanJefferson, who was born on a Virginia plantation, and accustomed tothose social inequalities which slavery produces. But it seems that ashe advanced in years, in experience, and in honors, Adams became moreand more imbued with aristocratic ideas, --like Burke, whose earlycareer was marked for liberal and progressive views, but who becamefinally the most conservative of English statesmen, and recoiled fromthe logical sequence of the principles he originally advocated with suchtranscendent eloquence and ability. And Adams, when he became president, after rendering services to his country second only to those ofWashington, became saddened and embittered; and even as Burke raved overthe French Revolution, so did Adams grow morose in view of the triumphsof the Democracy and the hopeless defeat of his party, which wasdestined never again to rally except under another name, and then onlyfor a brief period. There was little of historic interest connectedwith the administration of John Adams as President of the United States. He held his exalted office only for one term, while his rivals werere-elected during the twenty-four succeeding years of our nationalhistory, --all disciples and friends of Jefferson, who followed out thepolicy he had inaugurated. In general, Adams pursued the foreign policyof Washington, which was that of peace and non-interference. In domesticadministration he made only ten removals from office, and kept up theceremonies which were then deemed essential to the dignity of president. 

The interest in his administration centred in the foreign relations ofthe government. It need not be added that he sympathized with Burke's"Reflections on the French Revolution, "--that immortal document whichfor rhetoric and passion has never been surpassed, and also for thebrilliancy with which reverence for established institutions is upheld, and the disgust, hatred, and scorn uttered for the excesses which markedthe godless revolutionists of the age. It is singular that sofair-minded a biographer as Parton could see nothing but rant andnonsense in the most philosophical political essay ever penned by man. It only shows that a partisan cannot be an historian any more than can alaborious collector of details, like Freeman, accurate as he may be. Adams, like Burke, abhorred the violence of those political demagogueswho massacred their king and turned their country into a vile shamblesof blood and crime; he equally detested the military despotism whichsucceeded under Napoleon Bonaparte; and the Federalists generally agreedwith him, --even the farmers of New England, whose religious instinctsand love of rational liberty were equally shocked. 

Affairs between France and the United States became then matters ofparamount importance. Adams, as minister to Paris, had perceived theselfish designs of the Count de Vergennes, and saw that his object inrendering aid to the new republic had been but to cripple England. Andthe hollowness of French generosity was further seen when the governmentof Napoleon looked with utter contempt on the United States, whosepoverty and feebleness provoked to spoliations as hard to bear as thoserestrictions which England imposed on American commerce. It was theobject of Adams, in whose hands, as the highest executive officer, thework of negotiation was placed, to remove the sources of nationalgrievances, and at the same time to maintain friendly relations with theoffending parties. And here he showed a degree of vigor and wisdom whichcannot be too highly commended. 

The President was patient, reasonable, and patriotic. He curbed his hottemper, and moderated his just wrath. He averted a war, and gained allthe diplomatic advantages that were possible. He selected for envoysboth Federalists and Democrats, --the ablest men of the nation. WhenHamilton and Jefferson declined diplomatic missions in order to furthertheir ambitious ends at home, who of the statesmen remaining weresuperior to Marshall, Pinckney, and Gerry? How noble their disdain andlofty their independence when Talleyrand sought from them a bribe ofmillions to secure his influence with the First Consul! "Millions fordefence, not a cent for tribute, " are immortal words. And whennegotiations failed, and there seemed to be no alternative but war, --andthat with the incarnate genius of war, Napoleon, --Adams, pacific as washis policy, set about most promptly to meet the exigency, andrecommended the construction of a navy, and the mustering of an army ofsixteen thousand men, and even induced Washington to take the chiefcommand once more in defence of American institutions. Although at firstdemurring to Washington's request, he finally appointed Hamilton, hisgreatest political rival, to be the second general in command, --a manwho was eager for war, and who hoped, through war, to become the leaderof the nation, as well as leader of his party. When, seeing that theAmericans would fight rather than submit to insult and injustice, theFrench government made overtures for peace, the army was disbanded. ButAdams never ceased his efforts to induce Congress to take measures fornational defence in the way of construction of forts on the coast, andthe building of ships-of-war to protect commerce and the fisheries. 

In regard to the domestic matters which marked his administration themost important was the enactment of the alien and sedition laws, nowgenerally regarded as Federal blunders. The historical importance of thepassage of these laws is that they contributed more than all otherthings together to break up the Federal party, and throw political powerinto the hands of the Republicans, as the Democrats were still called. At that time there were over thirty thousand French exiles in thecountry, generally discontented with the government. With them, libertymeant license to do and say whatever they pleased. As they were notnaturalized, they were not citizens; and as they were not citizens, theFederalists maintained that they could not claim the privileges whichcitizens enjoyed to the full extent, --that they were in the country onsufferance, and if they made mischief, if they fanned discontents, ifthey abused the President or the members of Congress, they were liableto punishment. It must be remembered that the government was notsettled on so firm foundations as at the present day; even Jeffersonwrought himself to believe that John Adams was aiming to make himselfking, and establish aristocratic institutions like those in England. This assumption was indeed preposterous and ill-founded; nevertheless itwas credited by many Republicans. Moreover, the difficulties with Franceseemed fraught with danger; there might be war, and these aliens mightprove public enemies. It was probably deemed by the Federalists, governing under such dangers, to be a matter of public safety to putthese foreigners under the eyes of the Executive, as a body to bewatched, a body that might prove dangerous in the unsettled state ofthe country. 

The Federalists doubtless strained the Constitution, and putinterpretations upon it which would not bear the strictest scrutiny. They were bitterly accused of acting against the Constitution. It wasaverred that everybody who settled in the country was entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, " according to the doctrine taughtin the Declaration of Independence. And this was not denied by theFederalists so long as the foreigners behaved themselves; but when theygave vent to extreme liberal sentiments, like the French revolutionists, and became a nuisance, it was deemed right, and a wise precaution, toauthorize the President to send them back to their own countries. 

Now it is probable that these aliens were not as dangerous as theyseemed; they were ready to become citizens when the suffrage should beenlarged; their discontent was magnified; they were mostly excitable butharmless people, unreasonably feared. Jefferson looked upon them asfuture citizens, trusted them with his unbounded faith in democraticinstitutions, and thought that the treatment of them in the Alien Lawswas unjust, impolitic, and unkind. 

The Sedition Laws were even more offensive, since under them citizenscould be fined and imprisoned if they wrote what were called "libels" onmen in power; and violent language against men in power was deemed alibel. But all parties used violent language in that fermenting period. It was an era of the bitterest party strife. Everybody wasmisrepresented who even aimed at office. The newspapers were full ofslanders of the most eminent men, and neither Adams, nor Jefferson, norHamilton, escaped unjust criminations and the malice of envenomedtongues. All this embittered the Federalists, then in the height oftheir power. In both houses of Congress the Federalists were in amajority. The Executive, the judges, and educated men generally, wereFederalists. Men in power are apt to abuse it. 

It is easy now to see that the Alien and Sedition Laws must have beenexceedingly unpopular; but the government was not then wise enough tosee the logical issue. Jefferson and his party saw it, and made the mostof it. In their appeals to the people they inflamed their prejudices andexcited their fears. They made a most successful handle of what theycalled the violation of the Constitution and the rights of man; and thecurrent turned. From the day that the obnoxious and probably unnecessarylaws were passed, the Federal party was doomed. It lost its hold on thepeople. The dissensions and rivalries of the Federal leaders added totheir discomfiture. What they lost they never could regain. Only warwould have put them on their feet again; and Adams, with truepatriotism, while ready for necessary combat, was opposed to a foreignwar for purposes of domestic policy. 

Yet the ambitious statesman did not wish to be dethroned. He lovedoffice dearly, and hence he did not yield gracefully to the triumph ofthe ascendent party, which grew stronger every day. And when theirvictory was assured and his term of office was about to expire, he satup till twelve o'clock the last night of his term, signing appointmentsthat ought to have been left to his successors. Among these appointmentswas that of John Marshall, his Secretary of State, to be Chief Justiceof the Supreme Court, --one that reflected great credit upon hisdiscernment, in spite of its impropriety, for Marshall's name is one ofthe greatest in the annals of our judiciary. On the following morning, before the sun had risen, the ex-president was on his way to Braintree, not waiting even for the inauguration ceremonies that installedJefferson in the chair which he had left so unwillingly, and giving ventto the bitterest feelings, alike unmanly and unreasonable. 

I have not dwelt on the minor events of his presidency, such as hisappointments to foreign missions, since these did not seriously affectthe welfare of the country. I cannot go into unimportant events andquarrels, as in the case of his dismissal of Pickering and other membersof his Cabinet. Such matters belong to the historians, especially thosewho think it necessary to say everything they can, --to give minutedetails of all events. These small details, appropriate enough in workswritten for specialists, are commonly dry and uninteresting; they arewearisome to the general reader, and are properly soon forgotten, asmere lumber which confuses rather than instructs. No historian can gosuccessfully into minute details unless he has the genius of Macaulay. On this rock Freeman, with all his accuracy, was wrecked; as anhistorian he can claim only a secondary place, since he had no eye toproportion, --in short, was no artist, like Froude. He was as heavy asmost German professors, to whom one thing is as important as another. Accuracy on minute points is desirable and necessary, but this is notthe greatest element of success in an historian. 

Some excellent writers of history think that the glory of Adams wasbrightest in the period before he became president, when he was adiplomatist, --that as president he made great mistakes, and had nomarked executive ability. I think otherwise. It seems to me that hisspecial claims to the gratitude of his country must include the wisdomof his administration in averting an entangling war, and guiding theship of state creditably in perplexing dangers; that in most of hisacts, while filling the highest office in the gift of the people, he waspatient, patriotic, and wise. We forget the exceeding difficulties withwhich he had to contend, and the virulence of his enemies. What if hewas personally vain, pompous, irritable, jealous, stubborn, and fond ofpower? These traits did not swerve him from the path of duty and honor, nor dim the lustre of his patriotism, nor make him blind to the greatinterests of the country as he understood them, --the country whoseindependence and organized national life he did so much to secure. Allcavils are wasted, and worse than wasted, on such a man. His fame willshine forevermore, in undimmed lustre, to bless mankind. Small is thatcritic who sees the defects, but has no eye for the splendors, of agreat career!

There is but little more to be said of Adams after the completion of histerm of office. He retired to his farm in Quincy, a part of Braintree, for which he had the same love that Washington had for Mount Vernon, andJefferson for Monticello. In the placid rest of agricultural life, andwith a comfortable independence, his later days were spent. The kindlysentiments of his heart grew warmer with leisure, study, and friendlyintercourse with his town's-people. He even renewed a pleasantcorrespondence with Jefferson. He took the most interest, naturally, inthe political career of his son, John Quincy Adams, whom he persuaded toavoid extremes, so that it is difficult to say with which politicalparty he sympathized the most. _In mediis tutissimus ibis_. 

In tranquil serenity the ex-president pondered the past, and lookedforward to the future. His correspondence in the dignified retirement ofhis later years is most instructive, showing great interest in educationand philanthropy. He was remarkably blessed in his family and in all hisdomestic matters, --the founder of an illustrious house, eminent for foursuccessive generations. His wife, who died in 1818, was one of the mostremarkable women of the age, --his companion, his friend, and hiscounsellor, --to whose influence the greatness of his son, John Quincy, is in no small degree to be traced. 

Adams lived twenty-five years after his final retirement from publiclife, in 1801, surrounded by his children and grandchildren, dividinghis time between his farm, his garden, and his library. He lived to seehis son president of the United States. He lived to see the completetriumph of the institutions he had helped to establish. He enjoyed thepossession of all his faculties to the last, and his love of readingcontinued unabated to the age of ninety-one, when he quietly passedaway, July 4, 1826. His last prayer was for his country, and his lastwords were, --"Independence forever!"

AUTHORITIES. 

Life of John Adams, by J. T. Morse, Jr. ; Life of Alexander Hamilton, byLodge; Parton's Life of Jefferson; Bancroft, United States; DanielWebster, Oration on the Death of Adams and Jefferson; Life of John Jay, by Jay, Flanders, and Whitelocke; Fiske's Critical Period of AmericanHistory; Sparks' Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution;Rives' Life of Madison; Curtis's History of the Constitution; Schouler'sHistory of the United States; McMaster's History of the People of theUnited States; Von Holst's Constitutional History; Pitkin's History ofthe United States; Horner's Life of Samuel Adams, Magruder's Marshall. 

THOMAS JEFFERSON. 

1743-1826. 

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. 

This illustrious statesman was born April 13, 1743, at "Shadwell, " hisfather's home, among the mountains of Central Virginia, about onehundred and fifty miles from Williamsburg. His father, Peter Jefferson, did not belong to the patrician class, as the great planters calledthemselves, but he owned a farm of nineteen hundred acres, cultivated bythirty slaves, and raised wheat. What aristocratic blood flowed in youngJefferson's veins came from his mother, who was a Randolph, of finepresence and noble character. 

At seventeen, the youth entered the College of William and Mary atWilliamsburg, after having been imperfectly fitted at a school kept by aMr. Maury, an Episcopal clergyman. He was a fine-looking boy, ruddy andhealthy, with no bad habits, disposed to improve his mind, which wasnaturally inquisitive, and having the _entrée_ into the good society ofthe college town. Williamsburg was also the seat of government for theprovince, where were collected for a few months in the year theprominent men of Virginia, as members of the House of Burgesses. In thisattractive town Jefferson spent seven years, --two in the college, studying the classics, history, and mathematics (for which he had anaptitude), and five in the law-office of George Wythe, --thus obtainingas good an education as was possible in those times. He amused himselfby playing on a violin, dancing in gay society, riding fiery horses, andgoing to the races. Although he was far from rich, he had as much moneyas was good for him, and he turned it to good advantage, --laying thefoundation of an admirable library. He cultivated the society of thebrightest people. Among these were, John Page, afterwards governor ofVirginia; Dr. Small, the professor of mathematics at the college, afterwards the friend of Darwin at Birmingham; Edmund Randolph, anhistoric Virginian; Francis Fauquier, the lieutenant-governor of theprovince, said to be a fine scholar and elegant gentleman of the Frenchschool, who introduced into Virginia the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot--as well as high play at cards; George Wythe, a risinglawyer of great abilities; John Burk, --the historian of Virginia; andlastly, Patrick Henry, --rough, jolly, and lazy. From such associates, all distinguished sooner or later, Jefferson learned much of society, of life, and literature. At college, as in after-life, his forte waswriting. Jefferson never, to his dying day, could make a speech. Hecould talk well in a small circle of admirers and friends, and he heldthe readiest pen in America, but he had no eloquence as a speaker, which, I think, is a gift like poetry, seldom to be acquired; and yet hewas a great admirer of eloquence, without envy and without any attemptsat imitation. A constant reader, studious, reflective, inquisitive, liberal-minded, slightly visionary, in love with novelties and theories, the young man grew up, --a universal favorite, both for hisaccomplishments, and his almost feminine gentleness of temper, whichmade him averse to anything like personal quarrels. I do not read thathe ever persistently and cordially hated and abused but one man, --thegreatest political genius this country has ever known, --and hated evenhim rather from divergence of political views than from personalresentment. 

As Jefferson had no landed property sufficiently large to warrant hisleading the life of a leisurely country gentleman, --the highestaspiration of a Virginian aristocrat in the period of entailedestates, --it was necessary for him to choose a profession, and only thatof a lawyer could be thought of by a free-thinking politician, --forsuch he was from first to last. Indeed, politics ever have been thenative air which Southern gentlemen have breathed for more than acentury. Since political power, amid such social distinctions andinequalities as have existed in the Southern States, necessarily hasbeen confined to the small class, the Southern people have always beenruled by a few political leaders, --more influential and perhaps moreaccomplished than any corresponding class at the North. Certainly theyhave made more pretensions, being more independent in theircircumstances, and many of them educated abroad, as are the leaders inSouth American States at the present day. The heir to ten thousand ortwenty thousand acres, with two hundred negroes, in the last century, naturally cultivated those sentiments which were common to great landedproprietors in England, especially pride of birth. 

It is remarkable that Jefferson, with his surroundings, should have beenso early and so far advanced in his opinions about the rights of man andpolitical equality; but then he was by birth only halfway between thepoor whites and the patrician planters; moreover, he was steeped in thephilosophy of Rousseau, having sentimental proclivities, and a leaningto humanitarian theories, both political and social. 

Jefferson was admitted to the bar in 1767, after five years in Wythe'soffice. He commenced his practice at a favorable time for a lawyer, in aperiod of great financial embarrassments on the part of the planters, arising from their extravagant and ostentatious way of living. Theylived on their capital rather than on their earnings, and even theirbroad domains were nearly exhausted by the culture of tobacco, --thechief staple of Virginia, which also had declined in value. It wasalmost impossible for an ordinary planter to make two ends meet, nomatter how many acres he cultivated and how many slaves he possessed;for he had inherited expensive tastes, a liking for big houses andcostly furniture and blooded horses, and he knew not where to retrench. His pride prevented him from economy, since he was socially compelled tokeep tavern for visitors and poor relations, without compensation. Hence, nearly all the plantations were heavily encumbered, whether greator small. The planter disdained manual labor, however poor he might be, and every year added to his debts. He lived in comparative idleness, amusing himself with horse-races, hunting, and other "manly sports, "such as became country gentlemen in the "olden time. " The real povertyof Virginia was seen in the extreme difficulty of raising troops forState or national defence in times of greatest peril. The calls ofpatriotism were not unheeded by the "chivalry" of the South; but whatcould patriotic gentlemen do when their estates were wasting away bylitigation and unsuccessful farming?

It was amid such surroundings that Jefferson began his career. Althoughhe could not make a speech, could hardly address a jury, he hadsixty-eight cases the first year of his practice, one hundred andfifteen the second, one hundred and ninety-eight the third. He was, doubtless, a good lawyer, but not a remarkable one, law business notbeing to his taste. When he had practised seven years in the generalcourt his cases had dropped to twenty-nine, but his office business hadincreased so as to give him an income of £400 from his profession, andhe received as much more from his estate, which had swelled to nearlytwo thousand acres. His industry, his temperance, his methodical ways, his frugality, and his legal research, had been well rewarded. While nota great lawyer, he must have been a studious one, for his legal learningwas a large element in his future success. At the age of thirty-one hewas a prominent citizen, a good office lawyer, and a rising man, withthe confidence and respect of every one who knew him, --and withal, exceedingly popular from his plain manners, his modest pretensions, andpatriotic zeal. He was not then a particularly marked man, but was onthe road to distinction, since a new field was open to him, --that ofpolitics, for which he had undoubted genius. The distracted state of thecountry, on the verge of war with Great Britain, called out his bestenergies. While yet but a boy in college he became deeply interested inthe murmurings of Virginia gentlemen against English misgovernment inthe Colonies, and early became known as a vigorous thinker and writerwith republican tendencies. William Wirt wrote of him that "he was arepublican and a philanthropist from the earliest dawn of hischaracter. " He entered upon the stormy scene of politics with remarkablezeal, and his great abilities for this arena were rapidly developed. 

Jefferson's political career really dates from 1769, when he entered theHouse of Burgesses as member for Albermarle County in the second year ofhis practice as a lawyer, after a personal canvass of nearly every voterin the county, and supplying to the voters, as was the custom, anunlimited quantity of punch and lunch for three days. The Assembly wascomposed of about one hundred members, "gentlemen" of course, among whomwas Colonel George Washington. The Speaker was Peyton Randolph, a mostcourteous aristocrat, with great ability for the duties of a presidingofficer. Among other prominent members were Mr. Pendleton, ColonelBland, and Mr. Nicholas, leading lawyers of the province. Mr. Jefferson, though still a young man, was put upon important committees, for he had a good business head, and was ready with his pen. 

In 1772 Mr. Jefferson married a rich widow, who brought him fortythousand acres and one hundred and thirty-five slaves, so that he nowtook his place among the wealthy planters, although, like Washington, hewas only a yeoman by birth. With increase of fortune he built"Monticello, " on the site of "Shadwell, " which had been burned. It wason the summit of a hill five hundred feet high, about three miles fromCharlottesville; but it was only by twenty-five years' ceaseless nursingand improvement that this mansion became the finest residence inVirginia, with its lawns, its flower-beds, its walks, and its groves, adorned with perhaps the finest private library in America. No wonder heloved this enchanting abode, where he led the life of a philosopher. 

But stirring events soon called him from this retreat. A British warvessel, in Narragansett Bay, in pursuit of a packet which had leftNewport for Providence without permission, ran aground about seventeenmiles from the latter town, and was burned by disguised Yankee citizens, indignant at the outrages which had been perpetrated by this armedschooner on American commerce. A reward of £500 was offered for thediscovery of the perpetrators; and the English government, pronouncingthis to be an act of high treason, passed an ordinance that the personsimplicated in the act should be transported to England for trial. Thisdecree struck at the root of American liberties, and aroused anindignation which reached the Virginian legislature, then assembled atWilliamsburg. A committee was appointed to investigate the affair, composed of Peyton Randolph, R. C. Nicholas, Richard Henry Lee, BenjaminHarrison, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson, --allnow historic names, --mostly lawyers, but representatives of theprominent families of Virginia and leaders of the Assembly. IndignantResolutions were offered, and copies were sent to the various Coloniallegislatures. This is the first notice of Jefferson in hispolitical career. 

In 1773, with Patrick Henry and some others, Jefferson originated theCommittee of Correspondence, which was the beginning of the intimaterelations in common political interest among the Colonies. In 1774 theHouse of Burgesses was twice dissolved by the royal governor, andJefferson was a member of the convention to choose delegates to thefirst Continental Congress; while in the same year he published a"Summary View of the Rights of British America, "--a strong plea for theright to resist English taxation. 

In 1775 we find Jefferson a member of the Colonial Convention at whichPatrick Henry, also a member, made the renowned war speech: "Give meliberty, or give me death. " Those burning words of the Virginia oratorpenetrated the heart of every farmer in Massachusetts, as they did thesouls of the Southern planters. In a few months the royal governmentceased to exist in Virginia, the governor, Dunmore, having retreated toa man-of-war, and Jefferson had become a member of the ContinentalCongress at its second session in Philadelphia, with the reputation ofbeing one of the best political writers of the day, and an ardentpatriot with very radical opinions. 

Even then hopes had not entirely vanished of a reconciliation with GreatBritain, but before the close of the year the introduction of Germanmercenaries to put down the growing insurrection satisfied everybodythat there was nothing left to the Colonies but to fight, or tamelysubmit to royal tyranny. Preparations for military resistance were nowmade everywhere, especially in Massachusetts, and in Virginia, whereJefferson, who had been obliged by domestic afflictions to leaveCongress in December, was most active in raising money for defence, andin inspiring the legislature to set up a State government. WhenJefferson again took his seat in Congress, May 13, 1776, he was put uponthe committee to draft a Declaration of Independence, composed, asalready noted, of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, andRobert R. Livingston, besides himself. To him, however, was intrusted bythe committee the labor and the honor of penning the draft, which wasadopted with trifling revision. He was always very proud of this famousdocument, and it was certainly effective. Among the ordinary people ofAmerica he is, perhaps, better known for this rather rhetorical piece ofcomposition than for all his other writings put together. It was one ofthose happy hits of genius which make a man immortal, --owing, however, no small measure of its fame to the historic importance of the occasionthat called it forth. It was publicly read on every Fourth-of-Julycelebration for a hundred years. It embodied the sentiments of a greatpeople not disposed to criticism, but ready to interpret in a generousspirit; it had, at the time, a most stimulating effect at home, and inEurope was a revelation of the truth about the feeling in America. 

From the 4th of July, 1776, Thomas Jefferson became one of the mostprominent figures identified with American Independence, by reason ofhis patriotism, his abilities, and advanced views of politicalprinciples, though as inferior to Hamilton in original and comprehensivegenius as he was superior to him in the arts and foresight of apolitical leader. He better understood the people than did his greatpolitical rival, and more warmly sympathized with their conditions andaspirations. He became a typical American politician, not by force ofpublic speaking, but by dexterity in the formation and management of aparty. Both Patrick Henry and John Adams were immeasurably more eloquentthan he, but neither touched the springs of the American heart like thisquiet, modest, peace-loving, far-sighted politician, since he, more thanany other man of the Revolutionary period, was jealous of aristocraticpower. Hamilton, Jay, Gouverneur Morris, were aristocrats who admiredthe English Constitution, and would have established a more vigorouscentral government. Jefferson was jealous of central power in the handsof aristocrats. So indeed was Patrick Henry, whose outbursts ofeloquence thrilled all audiences alike, --the greatest natural oratorthis country has produced, if Henry Clay may be excepted; but he wasimpractical, and would not even endorse the Constitution which wasafterwards adopted, as not guarding sufficiently what were callednatural rights and the independence of the States. This ultimately ledto an alienation between these great men, and to the disparagement ofHenry by Jefferson as a lawyer and statesman, when he was the mostadmired and popular man in Virginia, and "had only to say 'Let this belaw, ' and it was law, --when he ruled by his magical eloquence themajority of the Assembly, and when his edicts were registered by thatbody with less opposition than that of the Grand Monarque himself fromhis subservient parliaments. " Had he shown any fitness for militarylife, Patrick Henry would doubtless have been intrusted with animportant command; but, like Jefferson, his talents were confined tocivic affairs alone. Moreover, it is said that he was lazy and fond ofleisure, and that it was only when he was roused by powerful passions ora great occasion that his extraordinary powers bore all before him in anirresistible torrent, as did the eloquence of Mirabeau in the NationalConvention. 

Contemplative men of studious habits and a philosophical cast of mindare apt to underrate the genius which sways a popular assembly. Hence, Jefferson thought Henry superficial. But in spite of the defects of hisearly education, Henry's attainments were considerable, and theprofoundest lawyers, like Wirt, Nicholas, and Jay, acknowledged hisgreat forensic ability. Washington always held him in great esteem andaffection; and certainly had Henry been a shallow lawyer, Washington, whose judgment of men was notably good, would not have offered him thepost of Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, --although, as Jeffersonsneeringly said, "he knew it would be refused. "

Jefferson declined a re-election to the third Continental Congress, andin September, 1776, retired to his farm; but only for a short time, since in October we find him in the Virginia House of Delegates, andchairman of the most important committees, especially that on therevision of the laws of the State. His work in the State legislature wasmore important than in Congress, since it was mainly through hisinfluence that entails were swept away, and even the law ofprimogeniture. Instead of an aristocracy of birth and wealth, he wouldbuild up one of virtue and talent. He also assaulted State support ofthe Episcopal Church--which was in Virginia "the Established Church"--asan engine of spiritual tyranny, and took great interest in all mattersof education, formulating a system of common schools, which, however, was never put into practice. He was also opposed to slavery, having theconviction that the day would come when the negroes would beemancipated. He had before this tried to induce the Virginia law-makersto legalize manumission, and in 1778 succeeded in having them forbidimportation of slaves. Dr. James Schouler's (1893) "Life of Jefferson"says that the mitigation and final abolishment of slavery were among hisdearest ambitions, and adduces in illustration the failure of his planin 1784 for organizing the Western territories because it provided forfree States south as well as north of the Ohio River, and also hissuccessful efforts as President to get Congress to abolish slaveimportation in 1806-7. His warnings as to what must happen ifemancipation were not in some way provided for are familiar, asfulfilled prophecy. 

After two years at State law-making Jefferson succeeded Patrick Henry asgovernor of Virginia, in the summer of 1779. But although hisadministration was popular, it was not marked as pre-eminently able. Hehad no military abilities for such a crisis in American affairs, noreven remarkable executive talent. He was a man of thought rather than ofaction. His happiest hours were spent in his library. He did not succeedin arousing the militia when the English were already marching to theseat of government, and when the Cherokee Indians were threateninghostilities on the southwestern border. Nor did he escape the censure ofmembers of the legislature, which greatly annoyed and embittered him, sothat he seriously thought of retiring from public life. 

In 1782, on the death of his wife, whom he tenderly loved, we find himagain for a short time in Congress, which appointed him in 1784, asadditional agent to France with Franklin and Adams to negotiatecommercial treaties. On the return of Franklin he was accredited soleminister to France, to succeed that great diplomatist. He remained inFrance five years, much enamoured with French society, as was Franklin, in spite of his republican sentiments. He hailed, with all the transporthis calm nature would allow, the French Revolution, and was ever after awarm friend to France until the Genet affair, when his eyes werepartially opened to French intrigues and French arrogance. But theprinciples which the early apostles of revolution advocated were alwaysnear his heart. These he never repudiated. It was only the excesses ofthe Revolution which filled him with distrust. 

In regard to the Revolution on the whole, he took issue with Adams, Hamilton, Jay, and Morris, and with the sober judgment of the NewEngland patriots. England he detested from first to last, and could seeno good in her institutions, whether social, political, or religious. Hehated the Established Church even more than royalty, as the nurse ofboth superstition and spiritual tyranny. Even the Dissenters were notliberal enough for him. He would have abolished if he could, allreligious denominations and organizations. Above all things he despisedthe etiquette and pomp of the English Court, as relics of mediaevalfeudalism. To him there was nothing sacred in the person or majesty of aking, who might be an idiot or a tyrant. He somewhere remarks that inall Europe not one king in twenty has ordinary intelligence. 

With such views, he was a favorite with the savants of the FrenchRevolution, as much because they were semi-infidels as because they wereopposed to feudal institutions. The great points of diplomacy hadalready been settled by Franklin, and he had not much to do in France, although his talents as a diplomatist were exceptional, owing to hiscoolness, his sagacity, his learning, and his genial nature. There wasnothing austere about him, as there was in Adams. His manners, thoughsimple, were courteous and gentlemanly. He was diligent in business, andwas accessible to everybody. No American was more likely to successfullyfollow Franklin than he, from his desire to avoid broils, and thepacific turn of his mind. In this respect he was much better fitted todeal with the Count de Vergennes than was John Adams, whose suspiciousand impetuous temper was always getting him into trouble, not merelywith the French government, but with his associates. 

And yet Adams doubtless penetrated the ulterior designs of France withmore sagacity than either Franklin or Jefferson. They now appear, fromthe concurrent views of historians, to have been to cripple Englandrather than to help America. It cannot be denied that the Frenchgovernment rendered timely and essential aid to the United States intheir struggle with Great Britain, for which Americans should begrateful, whatever motives may have actuated it. Possibly Franklin, aperfect man of the world as well as an adroit diplomatist, saw that theFrench Government was not entirely disinterested; but he wisely held histongue, and gave no offence, feeling that half a loaf was better than noloaf at all; but Adams could not hold his tongue for any length of time, and gave vent to his feelings; so that in his mission he was continuallysnubbed, and contrived to get himself hated both by Vergennes andFranklin. "He split his beetle when he should have splitted the log. " Hewas honest and upright to an extraordinary degree; but a diplomatistshould have tact, discretion, and prudence. Nor is it necessary that heshould lie. Jefferson, like Franklin, had tact and discretion. It reallymattered nothing in the final result, even if Vergennes had in view onlythe interests of France; it is enough that he did assist the Americansto some extent. Adams was a grumbler, and looked at the motives of theact rather than the act itself, and was disposed to forget theobligation altogether, because it was conferred from other views thanpure generosity. Moreover, it is gratefully remembered that many personsin France, like La Fayette, were generous and magnanimous towardAmericans, through genuine sympathy with a people strugglingfor liberty. 

In reference to the service that Jefferson rendered to his country asminister to France we notice his persistent efforts to suppress thepiracy of the Barbary States on the Mediterranean. Although he lovedpeace he preferred to wage an aggressive war on these pirates ratherthan to submit to their insults and robberies, as most of the EuropeanStates did by giving them tribute. But the new American Confederationwas too weak financially to support his views, and the piracy andtribute continued until Captain Decatur bombarded Tripoli and chastisedAlgiers, during Jefferson's presidency, 1803-4. As minister, Jeffersonalso attempted to remove the shackles on American trade; which, however, did not meet the approval of the Morrises and other protectionists andmonopolists in the tobacco trade. 

But it was by his unofficial labors at this time that Jeffersonbenefited his country more than by his official acts as a negotiator. These labors were great, and took up most of his time; they includedsending information to his countrymen of all that was going on ofimportance in the realms of science, art, and literature, giving adviceand assistance to the unfortunate, sending seeds and machines and newinventions to America, and acquainting himself with all improvements inagriculture, especially in the culture of rice. He travelled extensivelyin most of the countries of Europe, always with his eyes open to learnsomething useful; one result of which was to deepen his disgust with theinstitutions of the Old World, and increase his admiration for those ofhis own country. He doubtless attached too much importance to thepolitical systems of Europe in producing the degradation he saw amongthe various peoples, even as he too impulsively considered republicanismthe source of all good in governments. He was on pleasant terms with thedifferent diplomatic corps, and lived in the easy and profuse style ofVirginia planters, --giving few grand dinners, but dispensing a generoushospitality to French visitors as well as to all Americans who called onhim. The letters he wrote were innumerable. No public man ever left toposterity more of the results of his observations and thought. Interesting himself in everything and everybody, and freelycommunicating his ideas in correspondence, he had a wide influence whileliving, and his ideas have been suggestive and fruitful to thoughtfulstudents of the public interest ever since. 

After five years' residence in France, he returned home, a much moreintelligent and cultivated man than when he arrived in Paris, whichnever lost its charm for him, in spite of its political convulsions, itsirreligion, and its social inequality. He came back to Monticello as ona visit only, expecting to return to his post. But another destinyawaited him. Washington required his services in the first Cabinet asSecretary of State for foreign affairs, --a part for which his diplomaticcareer had admirably qualified him, as well as his general abilities. 

The seat of government was then at New York, and Jefferson occupied ahouse in Maiden Lane, while Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, lived in Pine street. Jefferson's salary was $3, 500 a year, five hundredmore than Hamilton received; but it is not to be supposed that eitherlived on his official income. The population of the city was then butthirty-five thousand, and only a few families--at the head of which werethe Schuylers, the Livingstons, the Van Rensselaers, and theMorrises--constituted what is called "Society, " which was much moreceremonious than at the present day, and more exclusive. All the greatofficers of the new government were aristocratic and stately, eveninaccessible, except Jefferson; and many of the fashions, titles, andceremonies of European courts were kept up. The factotum of thePresident signed himself as "Steward of the Household, " while Washingtonhimself rode to church in a coach and six, attended by outriders. Greatfunctionaries were called "Most Honorable, " and their wives wereaddressed as "Lady" So-and-So. The most confidential ministers darednot assume any familiarity with the President. He was not addressed as"Mr. President, " but as "Your Excellency, " and even that title was toodemocratic for the taste of John Adams, who thought it lowered thepresident to the level of a governor of Bermuda, or one of his ownsecretaries. 

Only four men constituted the Cabinet of Washington; but the publicbusiness was inconsiderable compared with these times, and Jefferson inthe State Department had only four clerks under him. Still, he was avery busy man, as many questions of importance had to be settled. "Weare in a wilderness without a footstep to guide us, " wrote Madison toJefferson in reference to Congress. And it applied to the executivegovernment as well as to Congress. Neither the Executive nor theLegislature had precedents to guide them, and everything was in atangle; there was scarcely any money in the country, and still less inthe treasury. Even the President, one of the richest men in the country, if not the richest, had to raise money at two per cent a month to enablehis "steward of the household" to pay his grocer's bills, --and all themembers of his Cabinet had to sacrifice their private interests inaccepting their new positions. 

The head of a department was not so great a personage, in reality, as atthe present day, and yet very few men were capable of performing theduties of their position. Probably Alexander Hamilton was the only manin the country then fit to be Secretary of the Treasury, and Jeffersonthe only man available to be Secretary of State, since Adams was in thevice-presidential chair; and these two men Washington was obliged toretain, in spite of their mutual hostilities and total disagreement onalmost every subject presented to their consideration. In nothing werethe patience, the patriotism, and the magnanimity of Washington moreapparent than in his treatment of these two rival statesmen, perpetuallystriving to conciliate them, hopelessly attempting to mix oil withwater, --the one an aristocratic financier, who saw national prosperityin banks and money and central power; the other a democratic land-owner, who looked upon agriculture as the highest interest, and universalsuffrage as the only safe policy for a republic. Between the theories ofthese rivals, Washington had to steer the ship of state, originatingnothing himself, yet singularly clear in his judgment both of men andmeasures. He was governed equally by the advice of both, since theyworked in different spheres, and were not rivals in the sense that Burrand Jefferson were, --that is, leaders in the same party and competitorsfor the same office. 

In regard to the labors and services of Jefferson in the Department ofState, he was cautious, conciliatory, and peace-loving, "neither afanatic nor an enthusiast, " enlightened by twenty-five years ofdiscussion on the principles of law and government, and a practicalbusiness man. It required all his tact to prevent entangling foreignalliances, and getting into hot water with both France and England; forneither power had any respect for the new commonwealth, and each seemedinclined to take all the advantage it could of American weakness andinexperience. They were constantly guilty of such offences as theimpressment of our seamen, paper blockades, haughty dictation, andinsolent treatment of our envoys, having an eye all the while to thefuture dismemberment of the States, and the rich slices of territoryboth were likely to acquire in the South and West. At that time therewas no navy, no army to speak of, and no surplus revenue. There wereirritating questions to be settled with England about boundaries, andthe occupation of military posts which she had agreed to evacuate. Therewere British intrigues with Indians in the interior to make disturbance, while on the borders the fur-trade and fisheries were unsettled. Therewere debts to be paid from American to English merchants, which weredisputed, and treaties to be made, involving all the unsettledprinciples of political economy, as insoluble apparently to-day as theywere one hundred years ago. There were unjust restrictions on Americancommerce of the most irritating nature, for American vessels were stillexcluded from West India ports, and only such products were admitted ascould not be dispensed with. Such articles as whale oil, salt fish, saltprovisions, and grain itself, could not be exported to any town inEngland. In France a new spirit seemed to animate the government againstAmerica, a disposition to seize everything that was possible, and todictate in matters with which they had no concern, --even in relation toour own internal affairs, as in the instructions furnished to Genet, whose unscrupulous audacity and meddling intrigues at last exhausted thepatience of both Washington and Jefferson. 

But the most important thing that happened, of historical interest, whenJefferson was Secretary of State, was the origination of the Republican, or Democratic party, as it was afterwards called, in opposition to theFederal party, led by Hamilton, Jay, and Gouverneur Morris, Of this newparty Jefferson was the undisputed founder and life. He fancied he sawin the measures of the Federal leaders a systematic attempt toassimilate American institutions, as far as possible, to those of GreatBritain. He looked upon Hamilton as a royalist at heart, and upon hisbank, with other financial arrangements, only as an engine to controlvotes and centralize power at the expense of the States. He enteredinto the arena of controversial politics, wrote for the newspapers, appealed to democratic passions, and set in motion a net-work of partymachinery to influence the votes of the people, foreseeing the futuretriumph of his principles. He pulled political wires with as muchadroitness and effect as Van Buren in after-times, so that the statesmanwas lost in the politician. 

But Jefferson was not a vulgar, a selfish, or a scheming politician. Though ambitious for the presidency, in his heart he preferred the quietof Monticello to any elevation to which the people could raise him. Whathe desired supremely was the triumph of democratic principles, since hesaw in this triumph the welfare of the country, --the interests of themany against the ascendency of the few, --the real reign of the people, instead of the reign of an aristocracy of money or birth. Believing thatthe people knew, or ought to know, their own interests, he was willingto intrust them with unlimited political power. The Federalist leaderssaw in the ascendency of the people the triumphs of demagogy, theignoring of experience in government, the reign of passions, unenlightened measures leading to financial and political ruin, andwould therefore restrict the privilege, or, as some would say, theright, of suffrage. 

In such a war of principles the most bitter animosities were to beexpected, and there has never been a time when such fierce partycontests disgraced the country as at the close of Washington'sadministration, if we except the animosities attending the election ofGeneral Jackson. It was really a war between aristocrats and plebeians, as in ancient Rome; and, as at Rome, every succeeding battle ended inthe increase of power among the democracy. At the close of theadministration of President Adams the Federal party was destroyedforever. It is useless to speculate as to which party was in the right. Probably both parties were right in some things, and wrong in others. The worth of a strong government in critical times has been proved bythe wholesome action of such an autocrat as Jackson in the Nullificationtroubles with South Carolina, and the successful maintenance of theUnion by the power-assuming Congress during the Rebellion; whileJackson's autocracy in general, and the centralizing tendency ofCongressional legislation since 1865, are instances of the complicationslikely to arise from too strong a government in a country where thepeople are the final source of power. The value of universalsuffrage--the logical result of Jefferson's views of government--isstill an open question, especially in cities. But whether good or bad inits ultimate results, the victory was decisive on the part of thedemocracy, whose main principle of "popular sovereignty" has become theestablished law of the land, and will probably continue to rule as longas American institutions last. 

The questions since opened have been in regard to slavery, --in wayswhich Jefferson never dreamed of, --the comparative power of the Northand South, matters of finance, tariffs, and internal improvements, involving the deepest problems of political economy, education, andconstitutional law; and as time moves on, new questions will arise topuzzle the profoundest intellects; but the question of the ascendency ofthe people is settled beyond all human calculations. And it is in thismatter especially that Jefferson left his mark on the institutions ofhis country, --as the champion of democracy, rather than as the championof the abstract rights of man which he and Patrick Henry and SamuelAdams had asserted, in opposition to the tyranny of Great Britain in hertreatment of the Colonies. And here he went beyond Puritan New England, which sought the ascendency of the wisest and the best, when thearistocracy of intellect and virtue should bear sway instead of theunenlightened masses. Historians talk about the aristocracy of theSouthern planters, but this was an offshoot of the aristocracy offeudalism, --the dominion of favored classes over the enslaved, the poor, and the miserable. New England aristocracy was the rule of the wisestand the best, extending to the remotest hamlets, in which the peoplediscussed the elemental principles of Magna Charta and the liberties ofSaxon yeomen. This was the aristocracy which had for its defenders suchmen as the Adamses, the Shermans, and the Langdons, --something new inthe history of governments and empires, which was really subverted bythe doctrines of Rousseau and the leaders of the French Revolution, whomJefferson admired and followed. 

Jefferson, however, practically believed in the aristocracy of mind, andgave his preference to men of learning and refinement, rather than menof wealth and rank. He was a democrat only in the recognition of thepeople as the source of future political power, and hence in the beliefof the ultimate triumph of the Democratic party, which it was his workto organize and lead. Foreseeing how dangerous the triumph of a vulgarand ignorant mob would be, he tried to provide for educating the people, on the same principle that we would to-day educate the colored race. Thegreat hobby of his life was education. He thus spent the best part ofhis latter years in founding and directing the University of Virginia, including a plan for popular education as well. To all schemes ofeducation he lent a willing ear; but it was the last thing whicharistocratic Southern planters desired, --the elevation of the poorwhites, or political equality. Though a planter, Jefferson was more insympathy with New England ideas, as to the intellectual improvement ofthe people and its relation to universal suffrage, than with theSouthern gentlemen with whom he associated. Hamilton did not so muchcare for the education of the people as he did for the ascendency ofthose who were already educated, especially if wealthy. Property, in hiseyes, had great consideration, as with all the influential magnates ofthe North. Jefferson thought more of men than of their surroundings, andthus became popular with ordinary people in a lower stratum of sociallife. Hamilton was popular only with the rich, the learned, and thepowerful, and stood no chance in the race with Jefferson for popularfavor, wherever universal suffrage was established, any more than didJohn Adams, whose ideas concerning social distinctions, and theascendency of learning and virtue in matters of government, weredecidedly aristocratic. 

It is hard to say whether Jefferson or Hamilton was the wiser in hispolitical theories, nor is it certain which was the more astute andfar-reaching in his calculations as to the future ascendency ofpolitical parties. Down to the Civil War the Democrats had thingslargely their own way; since then, the Republican party--linealdescendant of the Federals, through the Whigs--have borne sway untilwithin very recent years, when there has developed a strong reactionagainst the centralizing tendency compacted by the rallying of thepeople about the government to resist disunion in 1860-65. 

Jefferson became Vice-President on the final retirement of Washington toprivate life in 1797, when Adams was made President. The vice-presidencywas a position of dignity rather than of power, and not so much desiredby ambitious men as the office of governor in a great State. What tookplace of importance in the political field during the presidency ofAdams has already been treated. As Vice-President, Jefferson had butlittle to do officially, but he was as busy as ever with his pen, and inpulling political wires, --especially in doing all he could to obstructlegislation along the lines laid down by the Federal leaders. Of course, like other leaders, he was aiming at the presidency, and I think he wasthe only man in our history who ever reached this high office bypersistent personal efforts to secure it. Burr failed, in spite of hisgreat abilities, as well as Hamilton, Calhoun, Clay, Benton, Webster, Douglas, Seward, and Blaine. All the later presidents have been men whowhen nominated as candidates for the presidency were comparativelyunknown and unimportant in the eyes of the nation, --selected not forabilities, but as the most "available" candidates; although some of themproved to be men of greater talent and fitness than was generallysupposed. The people accepted them, but did not select them, any morethan Saul and David were chosen by the people of Israel. Politicalleaders selected them for party purposes, and rather because they wereunknown than because they were known; while greater men, who had thenational eye upon them for services and abilities, had created too manyenemies, secret or open, for successful competition. An English memberof Parliament, of transcendent talent, if superior to all other membersfor eloquence, wisdom, and tact, is pretty certain of climbing to thepremiership, like Canning, Peel, Disraeli, and Gladstone. Probably noAmerican, for a long time to come, can reasonably hope to reach thepresidency because he has ambitiously and persistently labored for it, whatever may be his merits or services. In a country of wide extent likethe United States, where the representatives of the people and theStates in Congress are the real rulers, perhaps this is well. 

But even Jefferson did not inordinately seek or desire the presidency. The office quite as earnestly sought him, as the most popular man in thecountry, who had proved himself to be a man of great abilities in thevarious positions he had previously filled, and as honest as he waspatriotic. He had few personal enemies. His enemies were the leaders ofthe Federal party, if we except Aaron Burr, in whose honesty fewbelieved. The lies which the bitter and hostile Federalists told aboutJefferson were lost on the great majority of the people, who believedin him. 

Jefferson was inaugurated as president in 1801, and selected an ableCabinet, with his friend and disciple James Madison as Secretary ofState, and Albert Gallatin, an experienced financier, a Swiss by birth, as Secretary of the Treasury. He at once made important changes in allmatters of etiquette and forms, introducing greater simplicity, abolishing levees, titles, and state ceremonials, and making himselfmore accessible to the people. His hospitality was greater than that ofany preceding or succeeding president. He lived in the White House morelike a Virginian planter than a great public functionary, wearing plainclothes, and receiving foreign ministers without the usual formalities, much to their chagrin. He also prevailed on Congress to reduce the armyand navy, retaining a force only large enough to maintain law and order. He set the example of removing important officers hostile to hisadministration, although he did not make sweeping changes, as didGeneral Jackson afterward, on the avowed ground that "spoils belong tovictors, "--thus increasing the bitterness of partisanship. 

The most important act of Jefferson's administration was the purchaseof Louisiana from France for fifteen millions of dollars. Bonaparte hadintended, after that great territory had been ceded to him by Spain, tomake a military colony at New Orleans, and thus control the Mississippiand its branches; but as he wanted money, and as his ambition centred inEuropean conquests, he was easily won over by the American diplomatiststo forego the possession of that territory, the importance of which heprobably did not appreciate, and it became a part of the United States. James Monroe and Robert Livingston closed the bargain with the FirstConsul, and were promptly sustained by the administration, although theyhad really exceeded their instructions. Bonaparte is reported to havesaid of this transaction: "This accession of territory strengthensforever the power of the United States. I have given to England amaritime rival that will sooner or later humble her pride. "

By this purchase, which Jefferson had much at heart, the United Statessecured, not only millions of square miles of territory, but the controlof the Gulf of Mexico. This fortunate acquisition prevented thoseentangling disputes and hostilities which would have taken place whetherSpain or France owned Louisiana. Doubtless, Jefferson laid himself opento censure from the Federalists for assuming unconstitutional powers inthis purchase; but the greatness of the service more than balanced theirregularity, and the ridicule and abuse from his political enemies fellharmless. No one can question that his prompt action, whethertechnically legal or illegal, was both wise and necessary; itpractically gave to the United States the undisputed possession of thevast territory between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. Moreover, the President's enlightened encouragement of the explorationsof Lewis and Clarke's expedition across the Rocky Mountains to thePacific Ocean, led to the ultimate occupancy of California and the westcoast itself. 

The next event of national interest connected with the administration ofJefferson in his long term of eight years (for he was re-electedpresident, and began his second term in 1805), was the enterprise ofAaron Burr, with a view of establishing a monarchy in Mexico. It wasfortunately defeated, and the disappointed and ambitious politiciannarrowly escaped being convicted of high treason. He was saved only bythe unaccountable intrigues of the Federalists at a time of intenseparty warfare. Jefferson would have punished this unscrupulous intriguerif he could; but Burr was defended by counsel of extraordinaryability, --chiefly Federalist lawyers, at the head of whom was LutherMartin of Maryland, probably the best lawyer in the country, notwithstanding his dissipated habits. Martin was one of those fewdrinking men whose brains are not clouded by liquor. He could argue acase after having drunk brandy enough to intoxicate any ordinary man, and be the brighter for it. Burr also brought to bear the resources ofhis own extraordinary intellect, by way of quiet suggestions tohis counsel. 

This remarkable man was born at Newark, N. J. , in 1756, and was the sonof the Rev. Aaron Burr, president of Princeton College. He was agrandson of the celebrated Jonathan Edwards, the most original andpowerful metaphysical intellect known to the religious history of thiscountry, who confirmed Calvinism as the creed of New England Puritans. The young Burr, on the death of his father and grandfather, inheritedwhat was then considered as a fortune, and was graduated at Princeton in1772, with no enviable reputation, being noted for his idleness andhabits bordering on dissipation. He was a handsome and sprightly youngman of sixteen, a favorite with women of all ages. He made choice of theprofession of law, and commenced the study under Tappan Reeve ofElizabethtown. After the battle of Bunker Hill he entered the army atBoston, but, tired of inactivity, joined Arnold's expedition to Quebec, where he distinguished himself by his bravery. Ill-health compelled himto leave the army after four years service, --the youngest colonel in thearmy. He was no admirer of Washington, regarding him as "a farmer andIndian-fighter rather than a soldier. " He favored the cabal against him, headed by Gates and Conway. Washington, while ready to acknowledgeBurr's military abilities, always distrusted him, and withheld from himthe rank of brigadier. 

On leaving the army, at the age of twenty-three, Burr resumed hisstudies of the law, and was admitted to the Albany bar after briefpreparation. Conscious of his talents, he soon after settled in NewYork, and enjoyed a lucrative practice, the rival of Alexander Hamilton, being employed with him on all important cases. He had married, in 1782, the widow of an English officer, a Mrs. Provost, a lady older thanhe, --with uncommon accomplishments. In 1784 he was chosen a member ofthe New York Legislature, and was on intimate terms with the Clintons, the Livingstons, the Van Rennselaers, and the Schuylers. In 1789 he wasmade Attorney-General of the State during the administration of GovernorGeorge Clinton. His popularity was as great as were his talents, and in1791 he was elected to the United States Senate over General PhilipSchuyler, and became the leader of the Republican party, with increasingpopularity and influence. In 1796 he was a presidential candidate, andin 1800, being again a candidate for the presidency, he receivedseventy-three votes in the House of Representatives, --the same numberthat were cast for Jefferson. He would, doubtless, have been electedpresident but for the efforts of Hamilton, who threw his influence infavor of Jefferson, Democrat as he was, as the safer man of the two. Burr never forgave his rival at the bar for this, and henceforward thedeepest enmity rankled in his soul for the great Federalist leader. 

As Vice-President, Burr was marked for his political intrigues, andincurred the distrust if not the hostility of Jefferson, who neglectedBurr's friends and bestowed political favors on his enemies. Disgustedwith the inactivity to which his office doomed him, Burr pulled everywire to be elected governor of New York; but the opposition of the greatDemocratic families caused his defeat, which was soon followed by hisassassination of Hamilton, called a duel. Universal execration for thishideous crime drove him for a time from New York, although he was stillVice-President. But his political career was ended, although hisambition was undiminished. 

Then, seeing that his influence in the Eastern and Middle States washopelessly lost, Burr looked for a theatre of new cabals, and turned hiseyes to the West, opened to public view by the purchase of Louisiana. In the preparation of his plans he went first to New Orleans, then aFrench settlement, where he was lionized, returning by way of Nashville, Frankfort, Lexington, and St. Louis. At the latter post he found GeneralWilkinson, to whom he communicated his scheme of founding an empire inthe West, --a most desperate undertaking. On an island of the Ohio, nearMarietta, he visited its owner, called Blennerhasset, a restless andworthless Irishman, whom he induced to follow his fortunes. 

The adventurers contracted for fifteen boats and enlisted quite a numberof people to descend the Mississippi and make New Orleans theirrallying-point, supposing that the Western population were dissatisfiedwith the government and were ready to secede and establish a newrepublic, or empire, to include Mexico; also relying on the aid ofGeneral Wilkinson at St. Louis. But they miscalculated: Wilkinson wastrue to his colors; the people whom they had seduced gradually droppedoff; the territorial magistrates became suspicious and alarmed, and thegovernor of the Territory communicated his fears to the President, whoat once issued a proclamation to arrest the supposed conspirators, whohad fled when their enterprise had failed. 

Burr was seized near Natchez, and was tried for conspiracy; but thetrial came to nothing. He contrived to escape in the night, but wasagain arrested in Alabama, and sent to Richmond to be tried for treason. As has been said, he was acquitted, by a jury of which John Randolph wasforeman, with the sympathy of all the women, of whom he was a favoriteto the day of his death. The trial lasted six months, and Jefferson didall he could to convict him, with the assistance of William Wirt, justrising into notice. 

Although acquitted, Burr was a ruined man. His day of receptions andpopularity was over. His sad but splendid career came to an ingloriousclose. Feeling unsafe in his own country, he wandered abroad, at timestreated with great distinction wherever he went, but always arousingsuspicions. He was obliged to leave England, and wandered as a fugitivefrom country to country, without money or real friends. At Paris andLondon he suffered extreme poverty, although admired in society. At lasthe returned to New York, utterly destitute, and resumed the practice ofthe law, but was without social position and generally avoided. Hesucceeded in 1832 in winning the hand of a wealthy widow, but he spenther money so freely that she left him. After the separation he supportedhimself with great difficulty, but retained his elegant manner andfascinating conversation, until he died in the house of a lady friend in1836, and was buried at Princeton by the side of his father andgrandfather. 

Our history narrates no fall from an exalted position more melancholy, or more richly deserved, than his. Without being dissipated, he was abad and unprincipled man from the start. He might have been the pride ofhis country, like Hamilton and Jefferson, being the equal of both inabilities, and at one time in popularity. The school-books have given tohim and to Benedict Arnold an infamous immortality, comparing the onewith Cain, and the other with Judas Iscariot. 

The most important measure connected with Jefferson's longadministration was the Non-importation Act, commonly called the Embargo. It proved in the end a mistake, and shed no glory on the fame of thePresident; and yet it perhaps prevented a war, or at least delayed it. 

The peace of 1783 and the acknowledgment of American independence didnot restore friendly relations between England and the United States. Itwas not in human nature that a proud and powerful state like Englandshould see the disruption of her empire and her fairest foreignpossession torn from her without embittered feelings, leading to actswhich could not be justified by international law or by enlightenedreason. Accordingly, the government of Great Britain treated theAmerican envoys with rudeness, insolence, and contempt, much to theirchagrin and the indignation of Americans generally. It also adoptedmeasures exceedingly injurious to American commerce. France and Englandbeing at war, the Americans, as neutrals, secured most of the carryingtrade, to the disgust of British merchants; and, declaring mutualblockade, both French and English cruisers began to capture Americantrading-ships, the English being especially outrageous in their doings. Said Jefferson, in his annual message in 1805: "Our coasts have beeninfested and our harbors watched by private armed vessels. They havecaptured in the very entrance of our harbors, as well as on the highseas, not only the vessels of our friends coming to trade with us, butour own also. They have carried them off under pretence of legaladjudication; but not daring to approach a court of justice, they haveplundered and sunk them by the way, or in obscure places where noevidence could arise against them, maltreated the crews, and abandonedthem in boats in the open sea, or on desert shores without food orcovering. " In view of these things, the President recommended thebuilding of gunboats and the reorganization of the militia, and calledattention to materials in the navy-yards for constructing battleships. The English even went further and set up a claim to the right of search;sailors were taken from American ships to be impressed into their navalservice, on the plea--generally unfounded--that they were Britishsubjects and deserters. At last British audacity went so far as toattack an American frigate at Hampton Roads, and carry away four allegedBritish sailors, three of whom were American born. The English doctrinethat no man could expatriate himself was not allowed by America, whereimmigrants and new citizens were always welcome; but in the case ofnative Americans there could be no question as to their citizenship. This outrage aroused indignation from one end of the country to theother, and a large party clamored for war. 

But the policy of Jefferson was pacific. He abhorred war, and enteredinto negotiations, which came to nothing. Nor, to his mind, was thecountry prepared for war. We had neither army nor navy to speak of. Itwas plain that we should be beaten on the land and on the sea. Much ashe hated England, he preferred to temporize, and build a fewgunboats, --which everybody laughed at. 

Nor did the French government behave much better than the English. Itlooked upon the United States as an unsettled and weak country, to berobbed with impunity. At last, driven from the high seas, the Americanscould rely only on the coasting-trade. "One half the mercantile worldwas sealed up by the British, and the other half by the French. "

Jefferson now appealed to Congress, and the result was theNon-importation Act, or Embargo, forbidding Americans to trade withFrance and England. This policy was intended as a pressure on Englishmerchants. But it was a half-measure and did not affect Britishlegislation, which had for its object the utter annihilation of Americancommerce. Neither France nor England was hurt seriously by the Embargo, while our ships lay rotting at the wharves, and our merchants found thattheir occupation was gone. The New England merchants were discouragedand discontented. It was not they who wished to see their ships shut upby a doubtful policy. They would have preferred to run risks rather thanbe idle. But Jefferson paid no heed to their grumblings, feeling that hewas exhibiting to foreign powers unusual forbearance. It is singularthat he persevered in a policy that nearly the whole body of merchantscensured and regarded as a failure; but he did, and Congress wassubservient to his decrees. No succeeding president ever had theinfluence over Congress that he had. He was almost a dictator. He foundopposition only among the Federalists, whose power was gone forever. 

At last, when the farmers and planters joined with the shippinginterests in complaining of the Embargo, Jefferson was persuaded that itwas a failure, and three days before his administration closed it wasrepealed by Congress. But even this measure did not hurt the partywhich he had marshalled with such transcendent tact; for his friend anddisciple, James Madison, was elected to succeed him in 1809. 

The Embargo had had one result: it deferred the war with Great Britainto the next administration. That conflict of 1812-15 was not a gloriouswar for America except on the ocean. It was not entered upon by theBritish with any hope of the conquest of the country, but to do all theharm they could to the people who had achieved their independence. Onthe part of the United States it was simply a choice between insult, insolence, and injury on the one hand, and on the other the expenditureof money and loss of life, which would bear as hard on England as on theUnited States. Both parties at last wearied of a contest which promisedno permanent settlement of interests or principles. The Federalistsdeprecated it from the beginning. The Republican-Democracy sustained itfrom the instinct of national honor. Probably it could not have beenavoided without the surrender of national dignity. It was the last ofour wars with Great Britain. Future difficulties will doubtless besettled by arbitration, or not settled at all, in spite of mutualill-will. England and America cannot afford to fight. Our late Civil Wardemonstrated this, --when, with all the ill-feeling between the twonations, war was averted. The interests of trade may mollify and softeninternational jealousies, but only forbearance and the cultivation ofmutual and common interests can eradicate the sentiments ofmutual dislike. 

However, it was not the Embargo, nor the meditated treason of AaronBurr, nor the purchase of Louisiana, important as these were, whichgives chief interest to the eight years of Jefferson's administration, and made it a political epoch. It was the firm growth and establishmentof the Democratic party, of which Jefferson was the father and leader, as Hamilton was the great chieftain of the Federalist. With theaccession of Jefferson to power, a new policy was inaugurated, whichfrom his day has been the policy of the government, except in greatfinancial emergencies when men of brain have had the direction of publicaffairs. Democratic leaders like Jackson and Van Buren, representing thepassions or interests or prejudices of the masses, it would seem, havebeen generally unfortunate enough to lead the country into financialdifficulties, because they have conformed to the unenlightened instinctsof the people rather than to the opinions of the enlightened few, --greatmerchants, capitalists, and statesmen, that is, men of experience andability. And when these men of brain have extricated the country fromthe financial distress which men inexperienced in finance and ignorantof the principles of political economy have brought about, thedemocratic leaders have regained their political ascendency, since theyappealed, more than their antagonists, to those watchwords so dear tothe American heart, the abolition of monopolies, unequal taxation, theexaltation of the laboring classes, --whatever promises to aggrandize thenation in a material point of view, or professes to bring about thereign of "liberty, fraternity, and equality, " and the abolition ofsocial distinctions. 

It cannot be doubted that the policy of Jefferson, while it appealed tothe rights and interests of "working-men, " of men who labor with theirhands rather than by their brains, has favored the reign ofdemagogues, --the great curse of American institutions. Who now rule thecities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, and Chicago? Is itnot those who, in cities at least, have made self-government--the greatprinciple for which Jefferson contended--almost an impossibility? Thisgreat statesman was sufficiently astute to predict the rule of themajority for generations to come, but I doubt if he anticipated thecharacter of the men to whom the majority would delegate their power. Here he was not so sagacious as his great political rivals. I believethat if he could have foreseen what a miserable set the politicianswould generally turn out to be, --with their venality, theirunscrupulousness, their vile flatteries of the people, their system ofspoils, their indifference to the higher interests of the nation, --hisfaith in democracy as a form of government would have been essentiallyshaken. He himself was no demagogue. His error was in not foreseeing thelogical sequence of those abstract theories which made up his politicalreligion, --the religion of humanity, such as the French philosophers hadtaught him. But his theories pleased the people, and he himself waspersonally popular, --the most so of all our statesmen, not exceptingHenry Clay, who made many enemies. 

Jefferson's manners were simple, his dress was plain, he was accessibleto everybody, he was boundless in his hospitalities, he cared little formoney, his opinions were liberal and progressive, he avoided quarrels, he had but few prejudices, he was kind and generous to the poor andunfortunate, he exalted agricultural life, he hated artificial splendor, and all shams and lies. In his morals he was irreproachable, unlikeHamilton and Burr; he never made himself ridiculous, like John Adams, byegotism, vanity, and jealousy; he was the most domestic of men, worshipped by his family and admired by his guests; always ready tocommunicate knowledge, strong in his convictions, perpetually writinghis sincere sentiments and beliefs in letters to his friends, --asupright and honest a man as ever filled a public station, and finallyretiring to private life with the respect of the whole nation, overwhich he continued to exercise influence after he had parted with power. And when he found himself poor and embarrassed in consequence of hisunwise hospitality, he sold his library, the best in the country, to payhis debts, as well as the most valuable part of his estate, yet keepingup his cheerfulness and serenity of temper, and rejoicing in the generalprosperity, --which was produced by the ever-expanding energies andresources of a great country, rather than by the political theorieswhich he advocated with so much ability. 

On his final retirement to Monticello, in 1809, after forty-four yearsof continuous public service, Jefferson devoted himself chiefly to thecare of his estate, which had been much neglected during hispresidential career. To his surprise he found himself in debt, havinglived beyond his income while president. But he did not essentiallychange his manner of living, which was generous, though neitherluxurious nor ostentatious. He had stalls for thirty-six horses, andsometimes as many as fifty guests at dinner. There was no tavern nearhim which had so much company. He complains that an ox would all beeaten in two days, while a load of hay would disappear in a night, Fondas he was of company, he would not allow his guests to rob him of thehours he devoted to work, either in his library or on his grounds. Hiscorrespondence was enormous, --he received sixteen hundred and sevenletters in one year, and answered most of them. After his death therewere copies of sixteen thousand letters which he had written. Hisindustry was marvellous; even in retirement he was always writing orreading or doing something. He was, perhaps, excessively fond of hisgarden, of his flowers, of his groves, and his walks. Music was, as hehimself said, "the favorite passion of his soul. " His house was thelargest in Virginia, and this was filled with works of art, and thepresents he had received. But his financial difficulties increased fromyear to year. He was too fond of experiments and fancy improvements tobe practically successful as a farmer. 

One of his granddaughters thus writes of him: "I cannot describe thefeelings of veneration, admiration, and love that existed in my heartfor him. I looked upon him as a being too great and good for mycomprehension. I never heard him utter a harsh word to any one of us. Onwinter evenings, as we all sat round the fire, he taught us games, andwould play them with us. He reproved without wounding us, and commendedwithout making us vain. His nature was so eminently sympathetic thatwith those he loved he could enter into their feelings, anticipatetheir wishes, gratify their tastes, and surround them with an atmosphereof affection. "

Thus did he live in his plain but beautiful house, in sight of the BlueRidge, with Charlottesville and the university at his feet. He rodedaily for ten miles until he was eighty-two. He died July 4, 1826, fullof honors, and everywhere funeral orations were delivered to his memory, the best of which was by Daniel Webster in Boston. 

Among his papers was found the inscription which he wished to haveengraved on his tomb: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of theDeclaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia forReligious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia. " He doesnot allude to his honors or his offices, --not a word about hisdiplomatic career, or of his stations as governor of Virginia, Secretaryof State, or President of the United States. But the three things hedoes name enshrine the best convictions of his life and the substance ofhis labors in behalf of his country, --political independence, religiousfreedom, and popular education. 

The fame of Jefferson as author of the Declaration of Independence ismore than supported by his writings at different times which bear onAmerican freedom and the rights of man. It is as a writer on politicalliberty that he is most distinguished. He was not an orator orspeech-maker. He worked in his library among his books, meditating onthe great principles which he enforced with so much lucidity and power. It was for his skill with the pen that he was selected to draft theimmortal charter of American freedom, which endeared him to the heartsof the people, and which no doubt contributed largely to cement theStates together in their resistance to Great Britain. 

His reference to the statute of Virginia in favor of religious freedomillustrates another of his leading sentiments, to which he clung withundeviating tenacity during his whole career. He may have been afreethinker like Franklin, but he did not make war on the religiousbeliefs of mankind; he only desired that everybody should be free toadopt such religious principles as were dear to him, without hindranceor molestation. He was before his age in liberality of mind, and heought not to be stigmatized as an infidel for his wise toleration. Although his views were far from orthodox, they did not, after all, greatly differ from those of John Adams himself and the men of that daywho were enamoured with the ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau. At that timeeven the most influential of the clergy, especially in New England, wereArminians in their religious creed. The eighteenth century was not aprofound or religious epoch. It was an age of war and politicalagitations, --a drinking, swearing, licentious, godless age among theleaders of society, and of ignorance, prejudice, and pharisaicformalities among the people. Jefferson's own purity and uprightness oflife amid the laxity of the times is an unquestionable evidence of theelevation of his character and the sincerity of his moral andreligious beliefs. 

The third great object of Jefferson's life was to promote populareducation as an essential condition to the safety of the republic. Whilehe advocated unbounded liberty, he knew well enough that it woulddegenerate into license unless the people were well-informed. But whatinterested him the most was the University of Virginia, in whose behalfhe spent the best part of his declining years. He gave money freelyhimself, and induced the legislature to endow it liberally. Hesuperintended the construction of the buildings, which alone cost$300, 000; he selected the professors, prescribed the course of study, was chairman of the board of trustees, and looked after the interests ofthe institution. He thought more of those branches of knowledge whichtended to liberalize the mind than of Latin and Greek. He gave apractical direction to the studies of the young men, allowing them toselect such branches as were congenial to them and would fit them for auseful life. He would have no president, but gave the management of alldetails to the professors, who were equal in rank. He appealed to thehighest motives among the students, and recognized them as gentlemenrather than boys, allowing no espionage. He was rigorous in theexaminations of the students, and no one could obtain a degree unless itwere deserved. While he did not exclude religion from the college, morning prayers being held every day, attendance upon religious serviceswas not obligatory. Every Sunday some clergyman from the town orneighborhood preached a sermon, which was generally well attended. Fewcolleges in this country have been more successful or more ablyconducted, and the excellence of instruction drew students from everyquarter of the South. Before the war there were nearly seven hundredstudents, and I never saw a more enthusiastic set of young men, or a setwho desired knowledge for the sake of knowledge more enthusiasticallythan did those in the University of Virginia. 

Although it is universally admitted that Jefferson had a broad, original, and powerful intellect, that he stamped his mind on theinstitutions of his country, that to no one except Washington is thecountry more indebted, yet I fail to see that he was transcendentlygreat in anything. He was a good lawyer, a wise legislator, an ablediplomatist, a clear writer, and an excellent president; but in none ofthe spheres he occupied did he reach the most exalted height. As alawyer he was surpassed by Adams, Burr, and Marshall; as an orator hewas nothing at all; as a writer he was not equal to Hamilton and Madisonin profundity and power; as a diplomatist he was far below Franklin andeven Jay in tact, in patience, and in skill; as a governor he was timidand vacillating; while as a president he is not to be compared withWashington for dignity, for wisdom, for consistency, or executiveability. Yet, on the whole, he has left a great name for giving shape tothe institutions of his country, and for intense patriotism. Pre-eminentin no single direction, he was in the main the greatest political geniusthat has been elevated to the presidential chair; but perhaps greater asa politician than as a statesman in the sense that Pitt, Canning, andPeel were statesmen. He was not made for active life; he was rather aphilosopher, wielding power by his pen, casting his searching glanceinto everything, and leading men by his amiability, his sympatheticnature, his force of character, and his enlightened mind. The questionmight arise whether Jefferson's greatness was owing to force ofcircumstances, or to an original, creative intellect, like that ofFranklin or Alexander Hamilton. But for the Revolution he might neverhave been heard of outside his native State. This, however, might besaid of most of the men who have figured in American history, --possiblyof Washington himself. The great rulers of the world seem to be raisedup by Almighty Power, through peculiar training, to a peculiar fitnessfor the accomplishment of certain ends which they themselves did notforesee, --men like Abraham Lincoln, who was not that sort of man whomHenry Clay or Daniel Webster would probably have selected for theguidance of this mighty nation in the greatest crisis of its history. 

AUTHORITIES. 

The Life of Jefferson by Parton is the most interesting that I have readand the fullest, but not artistic. He introduces much superfluous matterthat had better be left out. As for the other Lives of Jefferson, thatby Morse is the best; that of Schouler is of especial interest as toJefferson's attitude toward slavery and popular education. Randall haswritten an interesting sketch. For the rest, I would recommend the sameauthorities as on John Adams in the previous chapter. 

JOHN MARSHALL

1755-1835

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

BY JOHN BASSETT MOORE, LL. D

While the Revolution had severed the tie which bound the colonies to themother country and had established the independence of the UnitedStates, the task of organizing and consolidating the new nation yetremained to be performed. The Articles of Confederation, though designedto form a "perpetual union between the States, " constituted in realitybut a loose association under which the various commonwealths retainedfor the most part the powers of independent governments. In the treatyof peace with Great Britain of 1782-83, strong national ground wastaken; but the general government was unable to secure the execution ofits stipulations. The public debts remained unpaid, for want of power tolevy taxes. Commerce between the States as well as with foreign nationswas discouraged and rendered precarious by variant and obstructive localregulations. Nor did there exist any judicial authority to which anappeal could be taken for the enforcement of national rights andobligations as against inconsistent State laws and adjudications. Thesedefects were sought to be remedied by the Constitution of the UnitedStates. But, as in the case of all other written instruments, theprovisions of this document were open to construction. Statesmen andlawyers divided in their interpretation of it, according to theirprepossessions for or against the creation and exercise of a strongcentral authority. 

Among the organs of government created by the Constitution was "oneSupreme Court, " in which, together with such inferior courts as Congressmight from time to time establish, was vested "the judicial power of theUnited States. " This power was declared to extend to all cases, in lawand equity, arising under the Constitution itself, the laws of theUnited States, and treaties made under their authority; to all casesaffecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all casesof admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which theUnited States should be a party; to controversies between two or moreStates, between a State and citizens of another State, and betweencitizens of different States, as well as between citizens of the sameState claiming lands under grants of different States, and between aState, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, orsubjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls, and those in which a State should be a party, the Supreme Courtwas vested with original jurisdiction, while in all the otherenumerated cases its jurisdiction was to be appellate. With theexceptions of suits against a State by individuals, which were excludedby the Eleventh Amendment, the judicial power of the United Statesremains to-day as it was originally created. 

But at the time when the Constitution was made, the importance to whichthe judicial power would attain in the political system of the UnitedStates could not be foreseen. The form was devised, but, like the nationitself, its full proportions remained to be developed. In thatdevelopment, so far as it has been made by the judiciary, one man wasdestined to play a pre-eminent part. This man was John Marshall, underwhose hand, as James Bryce has happily said, the Constitution "seemednot so much to rise . .. To its full stature, as to be gradually unveiledby him, till it stood revealed in the harmonious perfection of the formwhich its framers had designed. " For this unrivalled achievement therehas been conceded to Marshall by universal consent the title ofExpounder of the Constitution of the United States; and the generalapproval with which his work is now surveyed is attested by the tributelately paid to his memory. The observance on the 4th of February, 1901, by a celebration spontaneously national, of the one hundredthanniversary of his assumption of the office of Chief Justice of theUnited States, is without example in judicial annals. It is therefore amatter of interest not only to every student of American history, butalso to every American patriot, to study his career and to acquainthimself with that combination of traits and accidents by which hischaracter and course in life were determined. 

John Marshall was born Sept. 24, 1755, in Fauquier County, Virginia, ata small village then called Germantown, but now known as Midland, astation on the Southern Railway not far south of Manassas. Hisgrandfather, John Marshall, the first of the family of whom thereappears to be any record, was an emigrant from Wales. He left four sons, the eldest of whom was Thomas Marshall, the father of the Chief Justice. Thomas Marshall, though a man of meagre early education, possessed greatnatural gifts, and rendered honorable and useful public service both asa member of the Virginia Legislature, and as a soldier in theRevolutionary War, in which he rose to the rank of colonel. His son, John Marshall, was the eldest of fifteen children. Of his mother, whosemaiden name was Keith, little is known, but it has been well observed byone of Marshall's biographers, that, as she reared her fifteenchildren--seven sons and eight daughters--all to mature years, she couldhave had little opportunity to make any other record for herself, andcould hardly have made a better one. 

Subsequently to his birth, Marshall's parents removed to an estatecalled Oak Hill, in the western part of Fauquier County. It was herethat in 1775, when nineteen years of age, he heard the call of hiscountry and entered the patriot army as a lieutenant. We have of him atthis time the first personal description, written by a kinsman who wasan eye-witness of the scene, and preserved in the eulogy delivered byMr. Binney before the Select and Common Councils of Philadelphia onSept. 24, 1835. "His figure, " says the writer, "I have now before me. Hewas about six feet high, straight and rather slender, of darkcomplexion, showing little if any rosy red, yet good health, the outlineof the face nearly a circle, and within that, eyes dark to blackness, strong and penetrating, beaming with intelligence and good nature; anupright forehead, rather low, was terminated in a horizontal line by amass of raven-black hair of unusual thickness and strength; the featuresof the face were in harmony with this outline, and the temples fullydeveloped. The result of this combination was interesting and veryagreeable. The body and limbs indicated agility rather than strength, inwhich, however, he was by no means deficient. He wore a purple orpale-blue hunting shirt, and trousers of the same material fringed withwhite. A round black hat, mounted with the buck's tail for a cockade, crowned the figure and the man. He went through the manual exercise byword and motion deliberately pronounced and performed, in the presenceof the company, before he required the men to imitate him, and thenproceeded to exercise them, with the most perfect temper. .. . After a fewlessons the company were dismissed, and informed that if they wished tohear more about the war, and would form a circle around him, he wouldtell them what he understood about it. .. . He addressed the company forsomething like an hour. .. . He spoke at the close of his speech of theMinute Battalion about to be raised, and said he was going into it andexpected to be joined by many of his hearers. He then challenged anacquaintance to a game of quoits, and they closed the day withfoot-races and other athletic exercises, at which there was no betting. He had walked ten miles to the muster field, and returned the samedistance on foot to his father's house at Oak Hill, where he arrived alittle after sunset. "

The patriot forces in which Marshall was enrolled were described asminute-men, of whom it was said by John Randolph that they "were raisedin a minute, armed in a minute, marched in a minute, fought in a minute, and vanquished in a minute. " Their uniform consisted of homespun huntingshirts, bearing the words "Liberty or Death" in large white letters onthe breast, while they wore bucks' tails in their hats and tomahawks andscalping-knives in their belts. We are told, and may readily believe, that their appearance inspired in the enemy not a little apprehension;but we are also assured, and may as readily believe, that this feelingnever was justified by any act of cruelty. Their first active servicewas seen in the autumn of 1775, when they marched for Norfolk, whereLord Dunmore had established his headquarters. They saw their firstfighting at Great Bridge, where the British troops were defeated withheavy loss. Subsequently, the Virginia forces to which Marshall belongedjoined the army of Washington in New Jersey, and he saw service not onlyin that State, but also in Pennsylvania and New York, and, later in thewar, again in Virginia. In May, 1777, he was appointed a captain. Hetook part in the battles of Iron Hill and Brandywine. He was alsopresent at Monmouth, at Paulus (or Powles) Hook, and at the capture ofStony Point. He endured the winter's sufferings at Valley Forge, wherebecause of his patience, firmness, and good humor, he won the specialregard of the soldiers and his brother-officers. In the course of hismilitary service he often acted as judge-advocate; and he made theacquaintance of Washington and Hamilton, with both of whom he contracteda lasting friendship. 

As to the effect of these early experiences on the formation of hisopinions, Marshall himself has testified. "I am, " said he on a certainoccasion, "disposed to ascribe my devotion to the Union, and to agovernment competent to its preservation, at least as much to casualcircumstances as to judgment. I had grown up at a time . .. When themaxim, 'United we stand, divided we fall' was the maxim of everyorthodox American; and I had imbibed these sentiments so thoroughly thatthey constituted a part of my being. I carried them with me into thearmy, where I found myself associated with brave men from differentStates who were risking life and everything valuable in a commoncause; . .. And where I was confirmed in the habit of considering Americaas my country and Congress as my government. "

In 1780 Marshall was admitted to the Bar, and after another term ofservice in the army he began, in 1781, the practice of the law inFauquier County. His professional attainments must then have beencomparatively limited. His education in letters he had derived solelyfrom his father, who was fond of literature and possessed some of thewritings of the English masters, and from two gentlemen of classicallearning, whose tuition he enjoyed for the brief period of two years. Oflegal education he had had, according to our present standards, exceedingly little. It is said that when about eighteen years of age hebegan the study of Blackstone; but apart from this his legal educationseems to have been gained from a short course of lectures by ChancellorWythe, at William and Mary College, and from such reading as he was ableto indulge in during his military service. And yet, removing to Richmondabout 1783, he almost immediately rose to professional eminence. "Thisextraordinary man, " said William Wirt, "without the aid of fancy, without the advantages of person, voice, attitude, gesture, or any ofthe ornaments of an orator, deserves to be considered as one of the mosteloquent men in the world, if eloquence may be said to consist of thepower of seizing the attention with irresistible force, and neverpermitting it to elude the grasp until the hearer has received theconviction which the speaker intends. .. . He possesses one original andalmost superhuman faculty, --the faculty of developing a subject by asingle glance of his mind, and detecting at once the very point on whichevery controversy depends. "

From 1782 to 1795, Marshall was repeatedly elected to the VirginiaLegislature, the last time without his knowledge and against his wishes;and he also served one term as a member of the Executive Council of theState; but, as his residence was for the most part at Richmond, hispublic service did not seriously interrupt his career at the Bar. Hisexperience in State politics, however, served to deepen his convictionof the need of an efficient and well-organized national government andof restrictions on the power of the States. 

In the formation of the Constitution of the United States Marshall hadno hand; he was not a member of the convention by which it was framed;but when it was submitted to the several States for their action, hebecame a determined advocate of its adoption. In the Virginiaconvention, which was called to act upon that question, the prospects ofa favorable decision seemed at first to be most unpromising. Among thosewho opposed ratification we find the names of Henry, Mason, Grayson, andMonroe, names which sufficiently attest that the opposition was one, notof mere faction or obstruction, but of principle and patriotic feeling. Henry, who had been one of the first in earlier days to sound the noteof revolution, saw in the proposed national government a portent topopular liberties. In the office of President he perceived "the likenessof a kingly crown. " In the control of the purse and the sword, heforesaw the extinction of freedom. In the power to make treaties, toregulate commerce, and to adopt laws, he discerned an "ambuscade" inwhich the rights of the States and of the people would be destroyedunawares. To these alarming predictions the advocates of ratificationreplied with strong and temperate reasoning, and, while Madison wastheir leader, among those who won distinction in the contest stoodMarshall. He argued that the plan adopted by the Federal Conventionprovided for a "regulated democracy, " the only alternative to which wasdespotism. He contended for the establishment of an efficient governmentas the only means of assuring popular rights and the preservation of thepublic faith, violations of which were constantly occurring under theexisting government. It is interesting to notice that, in replying tothe suggestion that the legislative power of the proposed governmentwould prove to be practically unlimited, he declared: "If they [theUnited States] were to make a law not warranted by any of the powersenumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement ofthe Constitution, which they are to guard against. .. . They would declareit void. " In the end the Convention ratified the Constitution by amajority of ten votes, a result probably influenced by the circumstancethat it had then been accepted by nine States, and had thus by its termsbeen established between the adhering commonwealths. 

After the organization of the national government Marshall consistentlysupported the measures of Washington's administrations, including theJay treaty, and became a leader of the Federalist party, which, in spiteof Washington's great personal hold on the people, was in a minority inVirginia. But he did not covet office. He declined the position ofAttorney-General of the United States, which was offered to him byWashington, as well as the mission to France as successor to Monroe. In1797, however, at the earnest solicitation of President Adams, heaccepted in a grave emergency the post of envoy-extraordinary andminister-plenipotentiary to that country on a special mission, in whichhe was associated with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts. 

Few diplomatic enterprises have had so strange a history. When theplenipotentiaries arrived in Paris, the Directory was at the height ofits power, and Talleyrand was its minister of foreign affairs. He atfirst received the envoys unofficially, but afterwards intimated tothem, through his private secretary, that they could not have a publicaudience of the Directory till their negotiations were concluded. Meanwhile, they were waited upon by various persons, who representedthat, in order to effect a settlement of the differences between the twocountries, it would be necessary to place a sum of money at the disposalof Talleyrand as a _douceur_ for the ministers (except Merlin, theminister of justice, who was already obtaining enough from thecondemnation of vessels), and also to make a loan of money to thegovernment. The plenipotentiaries, though they at first repulsed thesesuggestions, at length offered to send one of their number to America toconsult the government on the subject of a loan, provided that theDirectory would in the meantime suspend proceedings against capturedAmerican vessels. This offer was not accepted, and the Americanrepresentatives, after further conference with the Frenchintermediaries, stated that they considered it degrading to theircountry to carry on further indirect intercourse, and that they haddetermined to receive no further propositions unless the persons whobore them had authority to treat. In April, 1798, after spending in theFrench capital six months, during which they had with Talleyrand twounofficial interviews and exchanged with him an ineffectualcorrespondence, Pinckney and Marshall left Paris, Gerry, to the greatdissatisfaction of his government, remaining behind. Marshall was thefirst to reach the United States. He was greeted with remarkabledemonstrations of respect and approbation; for, although his mission wasunsuccessful, he had powerfully assisted in maintaining a firm anddignified position in the negotiations. His entrance into Philadelphia"had the _éclat_ of a triumph. " It was at a public dinner given to himby members of both Houses of Congress that the sentiment was pronounced, "Millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute. " This sentiment hasoften been ascribed to Pinckney, who is supposed to have uttered it whenapproached by the unofficial agents in Paris. The correspondence shows, however, that the words employed by Mr. Pinckney were, "No, no; not asixpence!" The meaning was similar, but the phrase employed atPhiladelphia is entitled to a certain immortality of its own. 

On his return to the United States, Marshall resumed the practice ofhis profession; but soon afterwards, at the earnest entreaty ofWashington, he became a candidate for Congress, declining for thatpurpose an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States, assuccessor to Mr. Justice Wilson. He was elected after an excitingcanvass, and in December, 1799, took his seat. He immediately assumed aleading place among the supporters of President Adams's administration, though on one occasion he exhibited his independence of mere partydiscipline by voting to repeal the obnoxious second section of theSedition Law. But of all the acts by which his course in Congress wasdistinguished, the most important was his defence of the administration, in the case of Jonathan Robbins, _alias_ Thomas Nash, By thetwenty-seventh article of the Jay treaty it was provided that fugitivesfrom justice should be delivered up for the offence of murder orforgery. Under this stipulation Robbins, _alias_ Nash, was charged withthe commission of the crime of murder on board a British privateer onthe high seas. He was arrested on a warrant issued upon the affidavit ofthe British Consul at Charleston, South Carolina. After his arrest anapplication was made to Judge Bee, sitting in the United States CircuitCourt at Charleston, for a writ of _habeas corpus_. While Robbins was incustody, the President, John Adams, addressed a note to Judge Bee, requesting and advising him, if it should appear that the evidencewarranted it, to deliver the prisoner up to the representatives of theBritish government. The examination was held by Judge Bee, and Robbinswas duly surrendered. It is an illustration of the vicissitudes ofpolitics that, on the strength of this incident, the cry was raised thatthe President had caused the delivery up of an American citizen who hadpreviously been impressed into the British service. For this chargethere was no ground whatever; but it was made to serve the purposes ofthe day, and was one of the causes of the popular antagonism to theadministration of John Adams. When Congress met in December, 1799, aresolution was offered by Mr. Livingston, of New York, severelycondemning the course of the administration. Its action was defended inthe House of Representatives by Marshall on two grounds: first, that thecase was one clearly within the provisions of the treaty; and, second, that no act having been passed by Congress for the execution of thetreaty, it was incumbent upon the President to carry it into effect bysuch means as happened to be within his power. The speech which Marshalldelivered on that occasion is said to have been the only one that heever revised for publication. It "at once placed him, " as Mr. JusticeStory has well said, "in the front rank of constitutional statesmen, silenced opposition, and settled forever the points of national lawupon which the controversy hinged. " So convincing was it that Mr. Gallatin, who had been requested by Mr. Livingston to reply, declined tomake the attempt, declaring the argument to be unanswerable. 

In May, 1800, on the reorganization of President Adams's Cabinet, Marshall unexpectedly received the appointment of Secretary of War. Hedeclined it; but the office of Secretary of State also having becomevacant, he accepted that position, which he held till the fourth of thefollowing March. Of his term as Secretary of State, which lasted lessthan ten months, little has been said; nor was it distinguished by anyevent of unusual importance, save the conclusion of the convention withFrance of Sept. 30, 1800, the negotiation of which, at Paris, wasalready in progress, under instructions given by his predecessor, whenhe entered the Department of State. The war between France and GreatBritain, growing out of the French Revolution, was still going on. Thequestions with which he was required to deal were not new; and while heexhibited in the discussion of them his usual strength and lucidity ofargument, he had little opportunity to display a capacity fornegotiation. Only a few of his State papers have been printed, nor arethose that have been published of special importance. He gaveinstructions to our minister to Great Britain, in relation tocommercial restrictions, impressments, and orders in council violativeof the law of nations; to our minister to France, in regard to theviolations of neutral rights perpetrated by that government; and to ourminister to Spain, concerning infractions of international lawcommitted, chiefly by French authorities, within the Spanishjurisdiction. Of these various State papers the most notable was thatwhich he addressed on Sept. 20, 1800, to Rufus King, then United StatesMinister at London. Reviewing in this instruction the policy which hisgovernment had pursued, and to which it still adhered, in the conflictbetween the European powers, he said:--

"The United States do not hold themselves in any degree responsible toFrance or to Britain for their negotiations with the one or the other ofthese powers; but they are ready to make amicable and reasonableexplanations with either. .. . It has been the object of the Americangovernment, from the commencement of the present war, to preservebetween the belligerent powers an exact neutrality. .. . The aggressions, sometimes of one and sometimes of another belligerent power, have forcedus to contemplate and prepare for war as a probable event. We haverepelled, and we will continue to repel, injuries not doubtful in theirnature and hostilities not to be misunderstood. But this is a situationof necessity, not of choice. It is one in which we are placed, not byour own acts, but by the acts of others, and which we [shall] change sosoon as the conduct of others will permit us to change it. "

For a month Marshall held both the office of Secretary of State andthat of Chief Justice; but at the close of John Adams' administration hedevoted himself exclusively to his judicial duties, never performingthereafter any other public service, save that late in life he acted asa member of the convention to revise the Constitution of Virginia. 

It is an interesting fact that, prior to his appointment as ChiefJustice, Marshall had appeared only once before the Supreme Court, andon that occasion he was unsuccessful. This appearance was in the case ofWare _v_. Hylton, which was a suit brought by a British creditor tocompel the payment by a citizen of Virginia of a pre-Revolutionary debt, in conformity with the stipulations of the treaty of peace. During theRevolutionary War various States, among which was Virginia, passed actsof sequestration and confiscation, by which it was provided that, if theAmerican debtor should pay into the State treasury the amount due to hisBritish creditor, such payment should constitute an effectual plea inbar to a subsequent action for the recovery of the debt. When therepresentatives of the United States and Great Britain met in Paris tonegotiate for peace, the question of the confiscated debts became asubject of controversy, especially in connection with that of the claimsof the loyalists for the confiscation of their estates. Franklin andJay, though they did not advocate the policy of confiscating debts, hesitated, chiefly on the ground of a want of authority in the existingnational government to override the acts of the States. But when JohnAdams arrived on the scene, the situation soon changed. By one of thosedramatic strokes of which he was a master, he ended the discussion bysuddenly declaring, in the presence of the British plenipotentiaries, that, so far as he was concerned, he "had no notion of cheatinganybody;" that the question of paying debts and the question ofcompensating the loyalists were two; and that, while he was opposed tocompensating the loyalists, he would agree to a stipulation to securethe payment of debts. It was therefore provided, in the fourth articleof the treaty, that creditors on either side should meet with no lawfulimpediment to the recovery in full sterling money of _bona fide_ debtscontracted prior to the war. This stipulation is remarkable, not only asthe embodiment of an enlightened policy, but also as perhaps thestrongest assertion to be found in the acts of that time of the powerand authority of the national government. Indeed, when the Britishcreditors, after the establishment of peace, sought to proceed in theState courts, they found the treaty unavailing, since those tribunalsheld themselves still to be bound by the local statutes. In order toremove this difficulty, as well as to provide a rule for the future, there was inserted in the Constitution of the United States the clauseexpressly declaring that treaties then made, or which should be made, under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law ofthe land, binding on the judges in every State, anything in theConstitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 

On the strength of this provision, the question of the debts was raisedagain, and was finally brought before the Supreme Court. Marshallappeared for the State of Virginia, to oppose the collection of thedebt. He based his contention on two grounds: first, that by the law ofnations the confiscation of private debts was justifiable; second, that, as the debt had by the law of Virginia been extinguished by its paymentinto the State treasury, and had thus ceased to be due, the stipulationof the treaty was inapplicable, since there could be no creditor withouta debtor. It is not strange that this argument was unsuccessful. Whileit doubtless was the best that the cause admitted of, it may perhapsserve a useful purpose as an illustration of the right of the suitor tohave his case, no matter how weak it may be, fully and fairly presentedfor adjudication. On the question of the right of confiscation thejudges differed, one holding that such a right existed, while anotherdenied it, two doubted, and the fifth was silent. But as to theoperation of the treaty, all but one agreed that it restored to theoriginal creditor his right to sue, without regard to the originalvalidity or invalidity of the Virginia statute. 

When Marshall took his seat upon the bench, the Supreme Court, since itsorganization in 1790, had rendered only six decisions involvingconstitutional questions. Of his three predecessors, Jay, Rutledge, andEllsworth, the second, Rutledge, after sitting one term under a recessappointment, retired in consequence of his rejection by the Senate; andneither Jay nor Ellsworth, though both were men of high capacity, hadfound in their judicial station, the full importance of which wasunforeseen, an opportunity for the full display of their powers, eitherof mind or of office. The coming of Marshall to the seat of justicemarks the beginning of an era which is not yet ended, and which mustendure so long as our system of government retains the essentialfeatures with which it was originally endowed. With him really began theprocess, peculiar to our American system, of the development ofconstitutional law by means of judicial decisions, based upon theprovisions of a fundamental written instrument and designed for itsexposition and enforcement. By the masterful exercise of this momentousjurisdiction, he profoundly affected the course of the national life andwon in the knowledge and affections of the American people a larger andhigher place than ever has been filled by any other judicial magistrate. 

From 1801 to 1835, in the thirty-four years during which he presided inthe Supreme Court, sixty-two decisions were rendered involvingconstitutional questions, and in thirty-six of these the opinion of thecourt was written by Marshall. In the remaining twenty-six thepreparation of the opinions was distributed among his associates, whonumbered five before 1808 and after that date six. During the wholeperiod of his service, his dissenting opinions numbered eight, only oneof which involved a constitutional question. Nor was the supremacy whichthis record indicates confined to questions of constitutional law. Thereports of the court during Marshall's tenure fill thirty volumes, containing 1, 215 cases. In ninety-four of these no opinions were filed, while fifteen were decided "by the court. " In the remaining 1, 106 casesthe opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall in 519, ornearly one-half. 

A full review of the questions of constitutional law decided by theSupreme Court during Marshall's term of service would involve acomprehensive examination of the foundations on which our constitutionalsystem has been reared; but we may briefly refer to certain leadingcases by which fundamental principles were established. 

In one of his early opinions he discussed and decided the questionwhether an Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is void. Thisquestion was then by no means free from difficulty and doubt. Theframers of the Constitution took care to assure its enforcement byjudicial means against inconsistent State action, by the explicitprovision that the Constitution itself, as well as Federal statutes andtreaties, should be the "supreme law" of the land, and as such bindingupon the State judges, in spite of anything in the local laws andconstitutions. But as to the power of the courts to declareunconstitutional a Federal statute, the instrument was silent. There isreason to believe that this silence was not unintentional; nor would itbe difficult to cite highly respectable opinions to the effect that thecourts, viewed as a co-ordinate branch of the government, have no powerto declare invalid an Act of the Legislature, unless they possessexpress constitutional authority to that effect. We have seen thatMarshall expressed in the discussions of the Virginia convention acontrary view; but it is one thing to assert an opinion in debate andanother thing to declare it from the bench, especially in a caseinvolved in or related to political contests; and such a case wasMarbury _v_. Madison. 

Marbury was a citizen of the District of Columbia, who had beenappointed as a justice of the peace by John Adams, just before hisvacation of the office of President. It was one of the so-called"midnight" appointments of President Adams, which became a subject ofheated political controversy. It was alleged that Marbury's commissionhad been made out, sealed, and signed, but that Mr. Madison, whoimmediately afterwards became Secretary of State, withheld it from him. Marbury therefore applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of _mandamus_to compel its delivery. In the course of the judgment, which wasdelivered by Marshall, opinions were expressed on certain questions thedecision of which was not essential to the determination of the case, and into these it is unnecessary now to enter, although one of them hasbeen cited and acted upon as a precedent. But on one point the decisionof the court was requisite and fundamental, and that was the point ofjurisdiction. It was held that the court had no power to grant the writ, because the Federal statute by which the jurisdiction was sought to beconferred was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Thiswas the great question decided, and it was a decision of the firstimportance, since its assertion of the final authority of the judicialpower, in the interpretation and enforcement of our writtenconstitutions, came to be accepted almost as an axiom of Americanjurisprudence. In the course of his reasoning, Chief Justice Marshallexpressed in terms of unsurpassed clearness the principle which lay atthe root of his opinion. "It is, " he declared, "emphatically theprovince and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. .. . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on theoperation of each. .. . If, then, the courts are to regard theConstitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary Act ofthe Legislature, the Constitution and not such ordinary Act must governthe case to which they both apply. Those, then, who controvert theprinciple that the Constitution is to be considered in court as aparamount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courtsmust close their eyes on the Constitution and see only the law. Thisdoctrine would subvert the very foundation of all writtenconstitutions. " In subsequently applying this rule, Marshall affirmedthat the courts ought never to declare an Act of Congress to be void"unless upon a clear and strong conviction of its incompatibility withthe Constitution. " Nevertheless, the power has been constantly andfrequently exercised; and there can be no doubt that from its exercisethe Supreme Court of the United States derives a political importancenot possessed by any other judicial tribunal. 

While the supremacy of the Constitution was thus judicially assertedover the acts of the national legislature, by another series ofdecisions its proper supremacy over acts of the authorities of thevarious States was in like manner vindicated. Of this series we may takeas an example Cohens _v_. Virginia, decided in 1828. In this case awrit of error was obtained from the Supreme Court of the United Statesto a court of the State of Virginia, in order to test the validity of astatute of that State which was supposed to be in conflict with a law ofthe United States. It was contended on the part of Virginia that theSupreme Court could exercise no supervision over the decisions of theState tribunals, and that the clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 whichpurported to confer such jurisdiction was invalid. In commenting uponthis argument, Chief Justice Marshall observed that if the Constitutionhad provided no tribunal for the final construction of itself, or of thelaws or treaties of the nation, then the Constitution and the laws andtreaties might receive as many constructions as there were States. Hethen proceeded to demonstrate that such a power of supervision existed, maintaining that the general government, though limited as to itsobjects, was supreme with respect to those objects, and that such aright of supervision was essential to the maintenance of that supremacy. 

In 1819, he delivered in the case of McCulloch _v_. Maryland what isgenerally regarded as his greatest and most carefully reasoned opinion. The particular questions involved were those (1) of the power of theUnited States to incorporate a bank, and (2) of the freedom of a bank soincorporated from State taxation or control. The United States bank, which Congress had rechartered in 1816, had established a branch inMaryland. Soon afterwards the Legislature passed an Act requiring allbanks situated in the State to issue their notes on stamped paper, theobject being to strike at the branch bank by indirectly taxing it. Thecase was 'argued before the Supreme Court by the most eminent lawyers ofthe day, Pinkney, Webster, and Wirt appearing for the bank, and LutherMartin, Joseph Hopkinson, and Walter Jones for the State of Maryland. The unanimous opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall. Itasserted not only the power of the Federal government to incorporate abank, but also the freedom of such a bank from the taxation, control, orobstruction of any State. While no express power of incorporation wasgiven by the Constitution, yet it was found to be a power necessarilyimplied, since it was essential to the accomplishment of the objects ofthe Union. This principle Marshall laid down in these memorable words:"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of theConstitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainlyadapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with theletter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. "

Of no less importance than the opinions heretofore mentioned are thosethat deal with the power of the general government to regulate commerceand to preserve it from hindrance on the part of the States. Of thesethe chief example is that which was delivered in the case of Gibbons_v_. Ogden, in 1824. By the Legislature of New York an exclusive righthad been granted to Chancellor Livingston and Robert Fulton for a termof years to navigate the waters of the State with steam. The validity ofthis statute had been maintained by the judges in New York, includingChancellor Kent, and an injunction had been issued restraining otherpersons from running steamboats between Elizabethtown, New Jersey, andthe city of New York, although they were enrolled and licensed ascoasting vessels under the laws of the United States. The Supreme Court, speaking through Marshall, held the New York statute to beunconstitutional. By the Constitution of the United States, Congress isinvested with power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations andamong the several States. " The term "commerce" Marshall declared toembrace all the various forms of intercourse, including navigation, andhe affirmed that "wherever commerce among the States goes, the judicialpower of the United States goes to protect it from invasion by Statelegislatures. "

Mr. Justice Bradley declared that it might truly be said that "theConstitution received its permanent and final form from judgmentsrendered by the Supreme Court during the period in which Marshall was atits head;" and that, "with a few modifications, superinduced by thesomewhat differing views on two or three points of his great successor, and aside from the new questions growing out of the Civil War and therecent constitutional amendments, the decisions made since Marshall'stime have been little more than the applications of principlesestablished by him and his venerated associates. " To the rule thatMarshall's great constitutional opinions continue to be received asauthority, there are, however, a few exceptions, the chief of which isthat delivered in the Dartmouth College Case, the particular point ofwhich--that acts of incorporation constitute contracts which the Statelegislatures can neither alter nor revoke--has been greatly limited bylater decisions, while its effect has been generally obviated by expressreservations of the right of amendment and repeal. With rare exceptions, however, his constitutional opinions not only remain unshaken, butcontinue to form the very warp and woof of the law, and "can scarcelyperish but with the memory of the Constitution itself. " Nor should we, in estimating his achievements, lose sight of the almost uncontestedascendency which he exercised, in matters of constitutional law, overthe members of the tribunal in which he presided, in spite of what mighthave been supposed to be their predilections. When constitutionalquestions trench, as they often do, on the domain of statesmanship, itis natural, especially where precedents are lacking, that judges shoulddivide upon them in accordance with the views of government maintainedby the political parties with which they previously acted; and after1811, a majority of Marshall's associates on the bench held theirappointment from administrations of the party opposed to that to whichhe had belonged. This circumstance, however, does not appear to havedisturbed the consistent and harmonious development of the system towhich he was devoted; and it was in the second half of his term ofservice that many of the most important cases--such as McCulloch _v_. Maryland, Cohens _v_. Virginia, and Gibbons _v_. Ogden, in which heasserted the powers of national government--were decided. 

Nor is it alone upon his opinions on questions of constitutional lawthat Marshall's fame as a judge rests. The decisions of the SupremeCourt on constitutional questions naturally attract greater popularinterest than its judgments in other matters; but we have seen that itsjurisdiction embraces a wide range of subjects. Nor is it desirable thatits sphere of action should be circumscribed in the direction ofconfining it to questions that have a semi-political aspect. Indeed, itmay be believed that the safety and permanence of the court would bebest assured by extending rather than by contracting its jurisdiction inordinary comercial subjects. In dealing with such subjects, however, Marshall did not achieve that pre-eminence which he acquired in thedomain of constitutional law, a fact doubtless to be accounted for bythe defects of his early legal education, since no originality of mindcan supply the place of learning in matters which depend upon reasoningmore or less technical and artificial. But in the domain ofinternational law, in which there was greater opportunity for elementaryreasoning, he exhibited the same traits of mind, the same breadth andoriginality of thought, the same power in discovering, and the samecertainty in applying, fundamental principles that distinguished him inthe realm of constitutional discussions; and it was his lot on more thanone occasion to blaze the way in the establishment of rules ofinternational conduct. During the period of his judicial service, decisions were rendered by the Supreme Court in 195 cases involvingquestions of international law, or in some way affecting internationalrelations. In eighty of these cases the opinion of the court wasdelivered by Marshall; in thirty-seven by Mr. Justice Story; intwenty-eight by Mr. Justice Johnson; in nineteen, by Mr. JusticeWashington; in fourteen by Mr. Justice Livingston; in five, by Mr. Justice Thompson; and in one each by Justices Baldwin, Gushing, andDuvall. In eight the decision was rendered "by the court. " In five casesMarshall dissented. As an evidence of the respect paid to his opinionsby publicists, the fact may be pointed out that Wheaton, in the firstedition of his "Elements of International Law, " makes 150 judicialcitations, of which 105 are English and 45 American, the latter beingmostly Marshall's. In the last edition he makes 214 similar citations, of which 135 are English and 79 American, the latter being largelyMarshall's; and it is proper to add that one of the distinctive marks ofhis last edition is the extensive incorporation into his text of thewords of Marshall's opinions. Out of 190 cases cited by Hall, a recentEnglish publicist of pre-eminent merit, 54 are American, and in morethan three-fifths of these the opinions are Marshall's. 

One of the most far-reaching of all Marshall's opinions on questions ofinternational law was that which he delivered in the case of theschooner "Exchange, " decided by the Supreme Court in 1812. In preparingthis opinion he was, as he declared, compelled to explore "an unbeatenpath, with few, if any, aids from precedents or written laws;" for thestatus of a foreign man-of-war in a friendly port had not then beendefined, even by the publicists. The "Exchange" was an American vessel, which had been captured and confiscated by the French under theRambouillet decree, --a decree which both the Executive and the Congressof the United States had declared to constitute a violation of the lawof nations. She was afterwards converted by the French government into aman-of-war, and commissioned under the name of the "Balaou. " In thischaracter she entered a port of the United States, where she waslibelled by the original American owners for restitution. Seasoning byanalogy, Marshall, in a remarkably luminous opinion, held that thevessel, as a French man-of-war, was not subject to the jurisdiction ofthe ordinary tribunals; and his opinion forms the basis of the law onthe subject at the present day. 

By this decision, the rightfulness or the wrongfulness of the captureand condemnation of the "Exchange" was left to be determined by the twogovernments as a political question. In this respect Marshallmaintained, as between the different departments of government, whendealing with questions of foreign affairs, a distinction which heafterwards sedulously preserved, confining the jurisdiction of thecourts to judicial questions. Thus he laid it down in the clearest termsthat the recognition of national independence, or of belligerency, beingin its nature a political act, belongs to the political branch of thegovernment, and that in such matters the courts follow the politicalbranch. Referring, on another occasion, to a similar question, he said:"In a controversy between two nations concerning national boundary, itis scarcely possible that the courts of either side should refuse toabide by the measures adopted by its own government. .. . If thosedepartments which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of thenation, which assert and maintain its interests against foreign powershave unequivocally asserted its rights of dominion over a country ofwhich it is in possession, and which it claims under a treaty; if thelegislature has acted on the construction thus asserted, it is not inits own courts that this construction is to be denied. " (Foster_v_. Neilson). 

In the case of the American Insurance Company _v_. Canter, he assertedthe right of the government to enlarge the national domain, saying: "TheConstitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powerof making war and of making treaties; consequently, that governmentpossesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or bytreaty. " But he held the rights of private property in such case to beinviolate (U. S. _v_. Percheman). The most luminous exposition ofdiscovery as a source of title, and of the nature of Indian titles, isto be found in one of his opinions (Johnson _v_. McIntosh). 

A fundamental doctrine of international law is that of the equality ofnations. If a clear and unequivocal expression of it be desired, it maybe found in the opinion of Marshall in the case of "The Antelope. " "Nonation, " he declared, "can make a law of nations. No principle is moreuniversally acknowledged than the perfect equality of nations. Russiaand Geneva have equal rights. " And when the representatives of theUnited States fifty years later sought to establish at Geneva theliability of Great Britain for the depredations of the "Alabama" andother Confederate cruisers fitted out in British ports in violation ofneutrality, one of the strongest authorities on which they relied washis opinion in the case of the "Gran Para. "

In the decision of prize cases, Marshall, unlike some of his associates, was disposed to moderate the rigor of the English doctrines, as laiddown by Sir William Scott. "I respect Sir William Scott, " he declared ona certain occasion, "as I do every truly great man; and I respect hisdecisions; nor should I depart from them on light grounds; but it isimpossible to consider them attentively without perceiving that his mindleans strongly in favor of the captors. " This liberal disposition, blended with independence of judgment, led Marshall to dissent from thedecision of the court in two well-known cases. In one of these, which iscited by Phillimore as the "great case" of "The Venus, " it was held thatthe property of an American citizen domiciled in a foreign countrybecame, on the breaking out of war with that country, immediatelyconfiscable as enemy's property, even though it was shipped before hehad knowledge of the war. Marshall dissented, maintained that a merecommercial domicile ought not to be presumed to continue longer thanthe state of peace, and that the fate of the property should depend uponthe conduct of the owner after the outbreak of the war, in continuing toreside and trade in the enemy's country or in taking prompt measures toreturn to his own. In the other case--that of the "Commercen"--he soughtto disconnect the war in which Great Britain was engaged on thecontinent of Europe from that which she was carrying on with the UnitedStates, and to affirm the right of her Swedish ally to transportsupplies to the British army in the Peninsula without infringing theduties of neutrality towards the United States. As to his opinion in thecase of "The Venus, " Chancellor Kent declared that there was "no doubtof its superior solidity and justice;" and it must be admitted that hisopinion in the case of the "Commercen, " rested on strong logicalgrounds, since the United States and the allies of Great Britain in thewar on the Continent never considered themselves as enemies. 

It is not, however, by any means essential to Marshall's pre-eminence asa judge, to show that his numerous opinions are altogether free fromerror or inconsistency. In one interesting series of cases, relating tothe power of a nation to enforce prohibitions of commerce by the seizureof foreign vessels outside territorial waters, the views which heoriginally expressed in favor of the existence of such a right appear tohave undergone a marked, if not radical, change, in favor of the wiseand salutary exemption of ships from visitation and search on the highseas in time of peace (Rose _v_. Himely), --a principle which he affirmedon more than one occasion (The Antelope). In the reasoning of anothercase, though not in its result, we may perhaps discern traces of thepreconceptions formed by the advocate in the argument concerning theBritish debts. This was the case of Brown _v_. United States, whichinvolved the question of the confiscability of the private property ofan enemy on land, by judicial proceedings, in the absence of an Act ofCongress expressly authorizing such proceedings. On the theory that warrenders all property of the enemy liable to confiscation, Mr. JusticeStory, with the concurrence of one other member of the Court, maintainedthat the Act of Congress declaring war of itself gave ample authorityfor the purpose. The majority held otherwise, and Marshall delivered theopinion. Referring to the practice of nations and the writings ofpublicists, he declared that, according to "the modern rule, " "tangibleproperty belonging to an enemy and found in the country at thecommencement of war, ought not to be immediately confiscated;" that"this rule" seemed to be "totally incompatible with the idea that wardoes of itself vest the property in the belligerent government;" and, consequently, that the declaration of war did not authorize theconfiscation. Since effect was thus given to the modern usage ofnations, it was unnecessary to declare, as he did in the course of hisopinion, that "war gives to the sovereign full right to take the personsand confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found, " and that the"mitigations of this rigid rule, which the humane and wise policy ofmodern times has introduced into practice, " though they "will more orless affect the exercise of this right, " "cannot impair the rightitself. " Nor were the two declarations quite consistent. The suppositionthat usage may render unlawful the exercise of a right, but cannotimpair the right itself, is at variance with sound theory. Between theeffect of usage on rights, and on the exercise of rights, the law drawsno precise distinction. A right derived from custom acquires noimmutability or immunity from the fact that the practices out of whichit grew were ancient and barbarous. We may therefore ascribe the dictumin question to the influence of preconceptions, and turn for the truetheory of the law to an opinion of the same great judge, deliveredtwenty years later, in which he denied the right of the conqueror toconfiscate private property, on the ground that it would violate "themodern usage of nations, which has become law" (U. S. _v_. Percheman). 

United with extraordinary powers of mind, we find in Marshall thegreatest simplicity of life and character. In this union of simplicityand strength he illustrated the characteristics of the earlier periodof our history. He has often been compared with the great judges ofother countries. He has been compared with Lord Mansfield; and althoughhe did not possess the extensive learning and elegant accomplishments ofthat renowned jurist, the comparison is not inappropriate when weconsider their breadth of understanding and powers of reasoning; and yetMansfield, as a member of the House of Lords, defending the prerogativesof the Crown and Parliament, and Marshall as an American patriot, swordin hand, resisting in the field the assumptions of imperial power, represent opposite conceptions. He has been compared with Lord Eldon;and it may be that in fineness of discrimination and delicateperceptions of equity he was excelled by that famous Lord Chancellor;and yet no greater contrast could be afforded than that of Eldon'suncertainty and procrastination on the bench with Marshall's bold andmasterful readiness. He has been compared with Lord Stowell, and it maybe conceded that in clearness of perception, skill in argument, andelegance of diction, Lord Stowell has seldom if ever been surpassed. Andyet it may be said of Marshall that, in the strength and clearness ofhis conceptions, in the massive force and directness of his reasoning, and in the absolute independence and fearlessness with which heannounced his conclusions, he presents a combination of qualities whichnot only does not suffer by any comparison, but which was alsopeculiarly his own. 

Mr. Justice Miller once declared that the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates was, "so far as ordinary forms of power are concerned, by far thefeeblest branch or department of the Government. It must rely, " headded, "upon the confidence and respect of the public for its justweight and influence, and it may be confidently asserted that neitherwith the people, nor with the country at large, nor with the otherbranches of the government, has there ever been found wanting thatrespect and confidence. " The circumstance that this statement of thelearned justice, himself one of the brightest ornaments of the tribunalof which he spoke, has been received with general assent, affords thestrongest proof that the successors of the Great Chief Justice and hisassociates have in no way fallen short of the measure of their trust;for, no matter how deeply the court may as an institution have beenplanted in the affections of the people, and no matter how important itmay be to the operation of our system of government, its position andinfluence could not have been preserved had its members been wantingeither in character, in conduct, or in attainments. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Chief Justice Marshall: an address by Mr. Justice Story; Eulogy on thelife and character of John Marshall, by Horace Binney; John Marshall, byAllan B. Magruder (American Statesmen Series); The Development of theConstitution as influenced by Chief Justice Marshall, by HenryHitchcock; John Marshall, by J. B. Thayer; The Supreme Court of theUnited States, by W. W. Willoughby; John Marshall, by C. F. Libby; ChiefJustice Marshall, by John F. Dillon; Mr. Justice Bradley, CenturyMagazine, December, 1889; and cases in the Reports of the Supreme Courtof the United States as follows: Ware _v_. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 199;Marbury _v_. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Cohens _v_. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264; McCulloch _v_. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, 421; Gibbons _v_. Ogden, 9Wheaton, 1; Schooner Exchange _v_. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 116; Foster _v_. Neilson, 2 Peters, 253; American Insurance Co. _v_. Canter, I Peters, 511; U. S. _v_. Percheman, 7 Peters, 51; Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheaton, 543; The Antelope, 10 Wheaton, 66; 11 Wheaton, 413; The Gran Para, 7Wheaton, 471; The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253, 299; The Commercen, 1 Wheaton, 382; Church _v_. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187; Rose _v_. Himely, 4 Cranch, 241; Brown _v_. United States, 8 Cranch, 110.