Return Home.--A Passage from the Edinburgh Review, apologetical of
American Federalism.--Speculation on the Subject.--Little Reward
of Democracy in the United States.--The Higher Classes contending
for the Purse.--Consequence of this Policy.--Declaration of an
American Reviewer with regard to American Poets--their Reward in
Europe.--Falling asleep.--The Nightmare.
“The earth has bubbles as the water has,
And these are of them.”
_Macbeth_, Act i. Scene 3.
On my return home, I found it impossible for me to go to sleep. The
events of the day were yet fresh upon my mind, and I required some
abstraction to set my thoughts to rest, and efface the disagreeable
impressions produced by the conversation of the stranger. Undetermined
as to the means of escaping from my own reflections, I searched the
books and papers on my writing-table; where, unfortunately for my
quiet, I happened to glance my eye on an American republication of
the “Edinburgh Review,” and a few scattered numbers of the “Southern
Literary Messenger.” I mechanically opened the first, and, as
misfortune would have it, found my attention at once riveted by the
following passage:--
“Purge the British constitution of its corruptions,” said Adams, “and
give to the popular branch equality of representation, and it would be
the most perfect institution ever devised by the wit of man.”
“Purge it of its corruptions,” replied Hamilton, “and it would become
an _impracticable_ government: as it stands at present, with all its
supposed defects, it is the most perfect government that ever existed.”
These remarks, I thought, proceeding from the two saints by which the
American Whigs still swear on solemn occasions, prove at least Hamilton
to have been the abler statesman, though they are both clearly
indicative of the spirit which pervaded some of the leading patriots of
the revolution.
Anxious to learn the opinion of a British writer on so interesting a
subject, I read on, and was struck with the following good-natured
apology for the doctrines and sentiments of the old Federalists.
“The leaning of the Federalists towards monarchy and aristocracy,” says
the reviewer, “has probably at all times been a good deal exaggerated
by their antagonists. That there is, at the present time, hardly any
such feeling, may be easily admitted; and it has probably been wearing
out by degrees ever since the revolution, in proportion as men saw
that realised without a struggle (!), which many in America, and still
more in England, had deemed impossible,--the firm establishment of a
republican government over many millions of people, with sufficient
power to preserve order at home, and sufficient energy to maintain the
relations of peace and war. _But, at the first, no reasonable doubt
can be entertained of the fondness for monarchical institutions which
prevailed among the leading Federalists.”_
The perusal of this passage, after a day spent, as I have described,
in the city of New York, naturally gave rise to singular reflections.
“What is it,” said I to myself, “that the Americans have established
without a struggle? And wherein consists the stability of their
republican institutions, if it be not in the fact that the people from
year to year conquer them anew from the wealthy opposition? And, as
regards the predilection for monarchical and aristocratic institutions,
who that has observed the higher classes of Americans, at home or
abroad, can doubt but that they are at this moment as strong as at the
time of Thomas Jefferson?”
The old Federalists have not given up _one_ of their former
pretensions,--for there is no converting men in politics by argument;
but they are probably satisfied that they must _wait for a favourable
opportunity_ of establishing them: they have become more cautious in
their actions and expressions, because they now _fear_ the people
over whom they once expected to rule. All that I have been able to see
in the United States convinces me that the wealthy classes are in no
other country as much opposed to the existing government; and that,
consequently, no other government can be considered as less permanently
established, or more liable to changes, than that of the United States.
And this state of danger the soft speeches of the Whigs try to conceal
from the people by directing their attention almost exclusively to the
financial concerns of the country. Wealth, in other countries,--as, for
instance, in England,--acts as the _vis inertiæ_ of the state; talent
from above, and the wants of the labouring classes from below, acting
as motors. In America the case is the reverse: the wealthy classes
wishing for a change which the labouring ones resist; and talent, I am
sorry to say, acting a subordinate part, ready to serve the cause of
either party that promises to reward its exertions.
This, I am aware, is a sad picture of America, but nevertheless a true
one; and I appeal to the history of the last half century, and to the
biography of American statesmen, if an impartial one should ever be
written, in confirmation of the general correctness of my statement.
Exceptions to this rule exist, of course, in every State; but, without
any particular predilection in favour of democracy, it is easy to
perceive that these mostly occur on the popular side.
Whenever a man of talent or wealth embraces the cause of democracy,
he becomes at once the butt of society, and the object of the most
unrelenting persecution with all the “respectable” editors, lawyers,
bankers, and business men in the large cities. To one democratic paper
published in a city, there are generally from ten to twelve, sometimes
twenty, Federal or Whig journals; which I take for the best possible
proof that talent loves to be rewarded, and in republics, as well as in
monarchies, naturally serves those who are best _able_ to reward it.
The democrats have not the means of remunerating the services of
their public men in the manner of the Whigs; for, with the exception
of a few government offices, with mere pittances for salaries, and
the election of senators and members of Congress,--persons “hired at
the rate of eight dollars a day,”--all lucrative offices of trust
and emolument are in the gift of the opposition, whose patronage,
therefore, is a matter of infinitely higher consideration than that of
the President and his cabinet.
The little pecuniary reward which the zealots and champions of
democracy meet with in the United States, is, indeed, one of the
reasons for which they are despised by their aristocratic opponents.
“What talents,” argue the latter, “can a man possess who will give up
all manner of business, and devote himself exclusively to politics,
in order, near the close of his life, to sit down contented with the
editorship of a penny paper, a membership of Congress, or an office of
from twelve hundred to two thousand dollars a year? Success in life is
the best proof of ability; and who that will look upon the respective
condition of our political partisans can for one moment be doubtful as
to which of them have the _best side_ of the question?”
It is for such and similar reasons that they take every opportunity
of railing against the increased patronage of the government; as if
the government of the United States were something apart from the
people,--a power which the people have to contend with, and against
which, therefore, they must direct their concentrated efforts! And a
considerable portion of the people are actually duped in that way; they
imagine that what is taken away from the government is gained by the
community, forgetting that the government is of their own choice, and
that the men placed at the head of it rise or fall at their beck. They
do not seem to be aware that, as long as the government of the United
States remains elective, all executive power vested in it increases but
the sovereignty of the people, and that the patronage of the government
is essentially their own.
On the subject of patronage the aristocratic press of America is truly
eloquent; that being the point for which it most contends, the lever of
its patriotism. What, indeed, would become of the flower of statesmen
of the present Whig party, if the government of the country, or the
people who elect that government, could reward the advocacy of their
cause as princely as the “wealthy and enlightened” opposition?--if
_money_ were at the command of the public servants, as it is at the
disposal of those who manage the great financial concerns of the
country? Hence the people are warned against putting the sword and the
purse into the same hands. “Let the government have the sword,” say the
Whigs, “provided we keep the purse.”
The purse is the point round which the whole system of politics turned
ever since the origin of the country. The war for and against a bank
did, indeed, agitate the United States before they were quite ushered
into existence; and has continued to throw the elements of state into
confusion, and to act in a truly corrosive manner on every true source
of national grandeur. What effect it had on the progress of literature
and the arts is exultingly shown in an article of “The Southern
Literary Messenger;” a copy of which, as I observed before, I found by
accident on my writing-table.
“The intellectual character of our republic,” says a writer in that
clever periodical, in a paper bearing the title “Scriptural Anthology,”
“makes rapid advances in improvement. A very few years ago it was
seriously argued whether or not the air of America was favourable to
the inspirations of genius; now our artists, actors, and poets bid fair
to take the lead of their European rivals. If the former fall short in
anything,
‘We ought to blame the culture, not the soil.’
It is now conceded on all sides that we have the stamina, or, (to
speak in a business-like tone,) the _raw material_ of the first
quality. No doubt but we have had Homers in embryo, many a ‘mute
inglorious Milton,’ and many a Tasso, ‘cabined, cribbed, and confined’
by oppressive circumstances. But in spite of all those proverbial
obstacles, to most of which the _American_ bard[14] is particularly
liable, a poetical star sometimes gleams above our horizon. Such
instances, it must be confessed, are rare; and in what part of the
world is the advent of a good poet _not_ a rare occurrence? With us
but little encouragement is offered for any man to devote his time and
talents to this branch of literature; and, without exclusive devotion,
we are apt to suppose that excellence in any art or science is but
seldom attained. But, with respect to encouragement, matters are
beginning to take a change for the better;--in our literary world the
golden age has been delayed to the last: poetical speculations, albeit
of an airy and immaterial nature, now yield something substantial in
the way of profit. Poets begin to have ‘a local habitation,’ not in
the gaol or garret; and ‘a name,’ not synonymous with starvation.
From being objects of cool regard or warm persecution, they have
become quite the lions of the day; _they visit foreign countries,
associate with the nobility, and drink tea_ (or _punch_) _in the serene
presence_ _of the royal family_. _Even_ at home, the study (!) of
poetry has almost dared to compete with the absorbing calculations of
compound interest; and many a clerk is ‘condemned to cross his father’s
spirit,’ as Chaucer saith, by penning a stanza ‘when he should make out
a bill.’”
This sort of reasoning, in which I am half inclined to believe the
author was serious, together with the fact that the principal poets
of America are really obliged to seek “a local habitation and a name”
in _Europe_, may be considered as the best proof of the all-absorbing
influence of the purse;--an influence which already acts restrictively
on genius and talent of the highest order, and will, if it be not
counteracted by a more generous system of legislation, and a different
spirit diffused _among the people_, constantly absorb the main sources
of thought and action, which give to every nation its individual life
and character.
But I trust that the good sense of the people, the intelligence
pervading the masses, and, above all, the high degree of morality and
virtue which distinguishes the American above all other nations in the
world, will be proof against the temptations of a handful of political
sceptics; and that the country, blessed with Nature’s richest gifts,
and selected by Providence for the noblest experiment tried by man,
will fulfil its mission,--which is not only the civilization of a new
world, but the practical establishment of principles which heretofore
have only had an ideal existence.
Thus cogitating, I pulled my night-cap over my head, put out the
candle, and fell fast asleep. Agitated as I had been during the whole
day, my sleep could not remain undisturbed by dreams. I imagined
myself somewhere near the Hudson or the Delaware, in the midst of a
large, flourishing city, besieged, stormed, and finally carried by a
victorious Western army, whose gallant leader dictated laws written in
blood to the affrighted populace. A deputation of “leading citizens,”
who had come to offer their riches as a ransom for their lives, he thus
apostrophized in a stern and solemn voice:--“Fools that ye were to wish
for artificial distinctions! Know that the origin of every aristocracy
is the sword, not the purse, or the Jews would long ago have become the
masters of the world! You have claimed the purse for yourself, and now
the sword shall take it!”
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
FOOTNOTES:
[14] The word “American” is in Italics in the original.
Transcriber’s Notes
Errors in punctuation have been fixed.
In the Table of Contents, “Stephen Girard” changed to “Stephen Gerard”
Page 22: “shores of the Monongahila” changed to “shores of the
Monongahela”
Page 146: “go shoping” changed to “go shopping”
Page 228: “eve the English” changed to “even the English”