made in the county, of materials
of the growth of the state, 8
2d best do. 7
3d best do. 6
To the Lady who shall attend the next
annual fair in the best homespun
dress, 20
2d best do. 18
3d best do. 16
4th best do. 14
5th best do. 12
6th best do. 10
WOODEN SOALED SHOES.
Mr. Custis of Arlington, near Alexandria in a letter to the editor
dated 1st Feb. last, observes--"Wooden soaled shoes are the very
best for labourers that I ever met with. They keep the feet warm and
dry in ditching, and in all kinds of labour, to be performed out of
doors in winter, and are a saving in expense of fully 80 per cent.
My people are all shod in this way, and themselves declare that they
never were so comfortable in their feet before, while my leather
bill from $100, has been reduced to scarce $20.
You form the soal, after the appearance of the leather soal and
heel, the wood about half or three fourths of an inch in thickness,
around the upper edge, is cut a rabbit, into which is nailed (with
ordinary sized tacks) the upper leather.--Not a particle of thread
is needed, except to close the two parts of upper leather.--Every
man may be his own shoemaker, and a man would put together a dozen
pair a day. In slippery weather, small plates of iron are nailed
around the toes and heels, and frost nails driven in them, which
also protects tects the soal from wear. Gum, ash, or dogwood, are
best for the soals, and about two sets will last the winter.--The
feet are never cold, or wet, and hence will be remedied those
chronic pains and evils, to which labourers are subject, from
exposure to cold and wet. For any purpose but a foot race, these are
the very best shoes, and I doubt whether even Sir Humphrey Davy has
made a more useful discovery in the last twenty years."
[_Am. Farmer._
_Republican Manners._--A gentleman, who lately visited the Atheneum
at Boston, told us, that he saw a book there, on the title page of
which was written these words, by the hand of Mr. Jefferson--
"_From Thomas Jefferson to his friend
John Adams._"
Now, to my way of thinking, all the flowers of rhetoric might be
culled, and yet be wanting of the "sublime and beautiful" that
irresistibly attaches itself to this little sentence--"Thomas
Jefferson to his friend John Adams." It affords a practical result
of our glorious system of government, more "precious than rubies."
It is a diamond of the finest water, which the republican should hug
to his bosom as a rich legacy to his children and his children's
children "to the thousandth generation"--an evidence in favour of
the simplicity of the truth never to be parted with, while the
mighty Mississippi rolls her floods to the ocean! It is worthy of
the best days of Greek or Roman history; and there is, doubtless,
a sincerity in it that Greece or Rome hardly knew to exist between
men so illustrious. The time has passed away in which either of
those venerable men can be regarded as at the head of a party in
the state, however much they were once opposed. They are preparing
"for another and a better world;" but, like the patriarchs of old,
with joyous hearts, survey the rich fruits of independence, planted
by their toil and nurtured by their care. Passion has long ceased
to influence either; oblivion has passed over their political
differences of opinion; ancient friendships are renewed, and a
spirit of harmony and reciprocal esteem prevails in each bosom.
What a magnificent sentence--"from Thomas Jefferson to his friend
John Adams!" Let us consider how great a space those men have filled
in the world. Each has been the rallying point of simultaneously
contending parties--each filled the highest office in the gift of
the only free people existing, to relieve the sombre despotism of
the civilized world.--Each has lived to see his early vows to the
republic fulfilled; and their present good understanding affords us
a delightful proof of the inestimable aphorism, that "a difference
of opinion is not a difference of principle."
What are now John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, so recently
the leading politicians of the day, the heads of mighty
parties?--private citizens, wholly abstracted from the bustle of
the times, and leaning on their good intentions, like Jacob on his
staff, to offer up thanksgivings to the Most High for the benefits
which He has been pleased to bestow upon their beloved country!
Neither holds a court, or is courted with sinister views; for it is
well understood that both have retired from the influence that might
have attached itself to them;--but the trace of their footsteps are
as blessed by a grateful people, and a good old age has come upon
them in peace!
May we imitate the plainness and sincerity of this little sentence!
What could ten thousand high-sounding titles add to the reputation,
or contribute to the internal satisfaction of these sages? Yet
we practise them and there are hundreds of little things among
us, creatures of the moment--here to-day and gone to-morrow,
and forgotten, who feel insulted if they are not called of men
_honourable_, written at full length, as if the title made them so.
I believe I never wrote this word, as prefixed to a man's name, but
once, and think that, while I preserve my reason and sense of moral
_honesty_, I never will write it again, to a fellow citizen.
It would not do any _harm_ if there was much more of this
magnificent simplicity at the seat of government, where comfort
is often sacrificed to form, and chilling etiquette keeps back
from those in office the very persons that they ought to have
familiar communication with. It is the yeomanry of the country,
who are to carry to the chiefs of the government, the feelings
and wishes of the nation: but they are frozen by the ceremony of
their introduction to men in power--congressmen and others. It is
hateful even to some who _seemingly_ exact it--because _it is "the
rule."_ Why not abrogate the rule, and while impertinent intrusion
is kept at a distance, receive honest worth on the level, as man
should receive man? A little anecdote, which I have recently heard,
may illustrate this remark--a certain gentleman, who now is a
quaker, or at least conforms to many of their manners, a veteran of
the revolution, and one of Mr. Monroe's earliest friends, having
business at Washington, was specially sent for by the president,
who had not seen him for more than forty years. The old man went to
the president's house; he was met in the hall by the servants, who
separately asked him for his cane, his coat, and his hat. The latter
he would not part with, and it was intimated to him that he could
not go into the president's room unless he dispossessed himself of
it; but he observed, 'if he couldn't go in, he could go out,' and
began to prepare for his departure. Then it was said, he might go in
with his hat on, if he was willing in risk it! He was willing, and
entered, and was received by the president as a true friend ought to
be received; and they had a very interesting interview, grateful to
one another. How much pleasure was nearly denied to Mr. Monroe for a
matter of form!--for, if the sturdy old republican had once left the
house, they never could have prevailed upon him to enter it again!
All _mere_ ceremonies are easy, and even in matters of the highest
import, become mechanical to those accustomed to perform them
daily--but are always irksome to those who never went through
them--nor do they form any part of our habits of thinking and
acting, as conformable to the nature of our institutions. I am
apprehensive that they are on the increase, though well convinced
that they are not desired by the president himself, and others
that I could name. But they are _fashionable_; and it is easier
to correct a positive vice than to do away an idle fashion. This
fashion keeps no one from the presence of influential persons who
has sinister designs to accomplish, but checks the warm flow of the
blood with which an honest farmer or mechanic would meet his own
elected rulers, and prevents that freedom of discussion by which
truth is manifested. Let us all endeavour to imitate the simplicity
and frankness of Jefferson--under this solemn assurance, that the
further we are removed from this plainness, the greater is the
danger of despotism. I am very far from being an enemy to what
are called the elegancies of life, and am quite willing that, if
a couple of dancing masters meet, they should bow to each other,
"according to rule," for half an hour before they approached near
enough to touch the tip of each other's finger, as the _sign_ of
shaking hands! Let those enjoy it who can, and practice it who
may--but it is not the _manner_ in which sincerity is shown, or good
fellowship promoted. The homage of the heart, such as the republican
will feel in reading the _text_ of this article, is worth more than
all the forms of etiquette ever devised. It is as a rock in the
midst of the sea--faction assails it in vain; it is _principle_ only
that takes effect upon it. The tide of popularity may rise and fall,
but the foundation is not to be shaken.
[_Niles' Reg._
_On the Importance of Manner._
To exasperate is not the way to convince: nor does asperity of
language or of manner necessarily belong to the duty of plain
dealing. So far otherwise, a scolding preacher, or a snarling
reprover, betrays alike a gross ignorance of the philosophy of the
human mind, and the absence of Christian meekness; and how zealous
soever be his aim to do good, the provokingness of his manner will
defeat the benevolence of his intentions.
The following remarks are from the pen of a man as distinguished
for Christian piety as for superiour genius--the immortal Cowper.
"No man" (says that _evangelical_ poet) "was ever scolded out of
his sins. The heart, corrupt as it is, and because it is so, grows
angry if it be not treated with some management and good manners,
and scolds again. A surly mastiff will bear perhaps to be stroked,
though he will growl under that operation, but if you touch him
roughly, he will bite. There is no grace that the spirit of self can
counterfeit with more success than that of zeal. A man thinks he is
fighting for Christ, when he is fighting for his own notions. He
thinks that he is skillfully searching the hearts of others, when he
is only gratifying the malignity of his own, and charitably supposes
his hearers destitute of all grace, that he may shine the more in
his own eyes by comparison."
Nor is scolding, or ridicule either, the proper way to cure men
of their religious prejudices: for, by inflaming their anger, it
renders their prejudices the more stubborn and inveterate. It is no
matter how absurd or even how monstrous their errors and prejudices;
if you offend them by the grossness of your manner, there is little
hope of your convincing them afterwards by the cogency of your
reasoning.
The Baptist Missionaries in India, at the first insulted, as we
are told, the superstition which they attacked, and ridiculed and
reviled the Bramins in the streets, and at their festivals, when the
passions of the blinded and besotted populace were most likely to be
influenced. But experience taught those pious and apostolical men,
that this was not the right way to make converts: for which reason,
in 1805, they made a declaration of the great principles upon which
they thought it their duty to act. "It is necessary," say they,
"in our intercourse with the Hindoos, that, as far as we are able,
we abstain from those things which would increase their prejudices
against the gospel. Those parts of English manners which are most
offensive to them should be kept out of sight; nor is it advisable
at once to attack their prejudices, by exhibiting with acrimony, the
sins of their gods; neither should we do violence to their images,
nor interrupt their worship."
Now if this forbearance from every thing provoking, whether in
language or manner, was expedient in dealing with the errors of
the grossly idolatrous pagans, it is assuredly not less expedient
for fellow Christians, in their treatment of the real or supposed
religious errors of one another. Bitter revilings and contumelious
denouncements always provoke, but never convince. If they are used
instead of argument, they betray a conscious weakness; for it is
much easier to revile and denounce than to argue. And furthermore,
we are quite as apt to be furiously in the wrong, as to be furiously
in the right: or even if we know ourselves to be right as to matter,
we put ourselves in the wrong as to manner, if we make use of foul
weapons rather than those which the armoury of reason supplies.
_Manner_ is to be carefully studied by every one, whether in a
public or a private station, who undertakes to reclaim the vicious,
or to convince the erring: for what would be beneficial if done in
one manner, would be worse than labour lost, if done in another.
A haughty, supercilious manner never wins, seldom convinces,
and always disgusts; whereas that which indicates meekness and
unmingled benevolence and compassion, rarely fails of some salutary
impression; especially if suavity of manner be accompanied with
force of reasoning, and a due regard be had to time, place, and
circumstances.
No very long while ago, Mr. ----, an American clergyman, as
distinguished for pious zeal as for eminent parts, was passing a
river in a ferry boat, along with company of some distinction, among
which was a military officer who repeatedly made use of profane
language: Mr. ---- continued silent till they had landed, when
taking him aside, he expostulated with him in such a moving manner,
that the officer expressed his thanks, and his deep sorrow for the
offence; but added withal: "_Sir, if you had reproved me before the
company, I should have drawn my sword upon you._"
There are some who glory in it, that by their plain dealing they
wound the pride of those they deal with. Peradventure with greater
pride they do it. Often, we are so little aware of the obliquities
of our own hearts, that we may be feeding and nourishing pride
within ourselves whilst we are zealously aiming our blows at the
pride of others. Our love of chiding, our coarse bluntness, which
we fondly term an honest plain heartedness, or a warmth of zeal,
may possibly spring from other motives than those of pure Christian
benevolence.
EXTRACT FROM WILKINSON'S MEMOIRS.
_Sentiments of an Old Soldier._
Let those parents who are now training their children for the
military profession, let those misguided patriots, who are
inculcating principles of education subversive of the foundations
of the republic, look at this picture of distress, taken from the
life of a youth in a strange land, far removed from friends and
relations, comingled with the dying and the dead, himself wounded,
helpless, and expiring with agony, and then should political
considerations fail of effect, I hope the feelings of affection, and
the obligations of humanity, may induce them to discountenance the
pursuits of war, and save their offspring from the seductions of
the plume and the sword, for the more solid and useful avocations
of civil life; by which alone peace and virtue, and the republic,
can be preserved and perpetuated. A dupe during my whole life,
to the prejudices I now reprobate, I speak from experience, and
discharge a conscientious duty, when I warn my country against
military enthusiasm, and the pride of arms; and against the arts and
intrigues by which the yeomanry, the palladium of the republic, are
depreciated, and standing armies and navies are encouraged. For what
would it avail the citizens of the United States, if in a political
frenzy, they should barter their rights and liberties for national
renown? And who would exchange the blessings of freedom, for the
repute of having eclipsed the whole human race in feats of valour
and deeds of arms? This is a serious question! It affects the vital
interests of every freeman; and the course of the government makes
it proper and necessary, that these states should pause and reflect,
before it be too late. We have escaped from one war with a crippled
constitution; the next will probably destroy it; therefore let the
motto of the state be--PEACE.
DR. FRANKLIN.
_Extracts from a letter of Mr. Jefferson, dated December 4th,
1818, respecting Dr. Franklin._
"Dr. Franklin had many political enemies, as every character must,
which, with decision enough to have opinions, has energy and talent
to give them effect on the feelings of the adversary opinion.
These enmities were chiefly in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
In the former they were merely of the proprietary party: in the
latter they did not commence till the revolution, and then sprung
chiefly from personal animosities, which spreading by little and
little, became at length of some extent. Dr. ---- was his principal
calumniator; a man of much malignity, who, besides enlisting his
whole family in the same hostility, was enabled, as the agent
of Massachusetts with the British government, to infuse it into
that state with considerable effect. Mr. Jay, Silas Deane, Mr.
Laurens, his colleagues also, ever maintained towards him unlimited
confidence and respect. That he would have waived the formal
recognition of our independence, I never heard on any authority
worthy notice. As to the fisheries, England was urgent to retain
them exclusively, France neutral, and I believe that had they been
ultimately made a _sine qua non_, our commissioners (Mr. Adams
excepted) would have relinquished them rather than have broken off
the treaty. To Mr. Adams' perseverance alone on that point, I have
always understood we were indebted for their reservation. As to
the charge of subservience to France, besides the evidence of his
friendly colleagues before named, two years of my own service with
him at Paris, daily visits, and the most friendly and confidential
conversations, convince me it had not a shadow of foundation. He
possessed the confidence of that government in the highest degree,
insomuch that it may truly be said that they were more under his
influence, than he under theirs. The fact is, that his temper was
so amiable and conciliatory, his conduct so rational, never urging
impossibilities, or even things unreasonably inconvenient to them;
in short, so moderate and attentive to their difficulties, as well
as our own, that what his enemies called subserviency, I saw was
only that reasonable disposition, which, sensible that advantages
are not all to be on one side, yielding what is just and liberal,
is the more certain of obtaining liberality and justice.--Mutual
confidence produces of course mutual influence, and this was all
which subsisted between Dr. Franklin and the government of France.
"I subjoin a few anecdotes of Dr. Franklin, within my own knowledge.
"Our revolutionary process, as is well known, commenced by
petitions, memorials, remonstrances, &c. from the old Congress.
These were followed by a non-importation agreement, as a pacific
instrument of coercion. While that was before us, and sundry
exceptions, as of arms, ammunition &c. were moved from different
quarters of the house, I was sitting by Dr. Franklin, and observed
to him that I thought we should except books: that we ought not to
exclude science, even coming from an enemy. He thought so too, and I
proposed the exception, which was agreed to. Soon after it occurred
that medicine should be excepted, and I suggested that also to the
doctor. 'As to that,' said he, 'I will tell you a story. When I was
in London, in such a year, there was a weekly club of physicians,
of which Sir John Pringle was president, and I was invited by my
friend Dr. Fothergill, to attend when convenient. Their rule was to
propose a thesis one week, and discuss it the next. I happened there
when the question to be considered was, Whether physicians had on
the whole, done most good or harm? The young members, particularly,
having discussed it very learnedly and eloquently till the subject
was exhausted, one of them observed to Sir John Pringle, that,
although it was not usual for the president to take part in a
debate, yet they were desirous to know his opinion on the question.
He said, they must first tell him whether, under the appellation
of physicians, they meant to include _old women_; if they did, he
thought they had done more good than harm; otherwise more harm than
good.'
"The Confederation of the States, while on the carpet before the old
Congress, was strenuously opposed by the smaller States, under the
apprehension that they would be swallowed up by the larger ones. We
were long engaged in the discussion; it produced great heats, much
ill humour, and intemperate declarations from some members. Dr.
Franklin at length brought the debate to a close with one of his
little apologues. He observed, that 'at the time of the union of
England and Scotland, the Duke of Argyle was most violently opposed
to that measure, and among other things predicted that, as the whale
had swallowed Jonas, so Scotland would be swallowed by England.
However,' said the doctor, 'when Lord Bute came into the government,
he soon brought into its administration so many of his countrymen,
that it was found, in the event, that Jonas swallowed the whale.'
This little story produced a general laugh, restored good humour,
and the article of difficulty was passed.
"When Dr. Franklin went to France on his revolutionary mission,
his eminence as a philosopher, his venerable appearance, and the
cause on which he was sent, rendered him extremely popular; for all
ranks and conditions of men there, entered warmly into the American
interest. He was therefore feasted and invited to all the court
parties. At these he sometimes met the old Duchess of Bourbon,
who being a chess-player of about his force, they very generally
played together. Happening once to put her king into _prise_, the
Doctor took it. 'Ah,' says she, 'we do not take kings so.' 'We do in
America,' said the doctor.
"At one of these parties, the Emperor Joseph II., then at Paris,
_incog._ under the title of Count Falkenstein, was overlooking
the game, in silence, while the company was engaged in animated
conversations on the American question. 'How happens it, M. Le
Comte,' said the Duchess 'that while we all feel so much interest in
the cause of the Americans, you say nothing for them?' 'I am a king
by trade,' said he.