« PreviousContinue »
after making the Senate ratify the treaty, to advise the President to reject it." "The treaty," says Hamilton, " is an execrable one, and Jay was an old woman for making it; but the whole credit of saving us from it must be given to the President." After circumstances had led to a conclusion, that the President also must ratify it, he said to the same Talleyrand, Though the treaty is a most execrable one, yet when once we have come to a determination on it, we must carry it through thick and thin, right or wrong." Talleyrand told this to Volney, who told it to me.' Vol. iv. pp. 502, 503.
Can it be supposed that these expressions did justice to the opinions of General Hamilton respecting the British treaty or its negotiator? It would seem that he recognised the justice of Talleyrand's remonstrance, that he had made dupes of his friends in the Senate, and imposed upon them the superfluous odium of ratifying an execrable treaty, which he intended the President should reject, but afterwards, for other reasons, thought he ought to ratify.
Tench Cox and one Beckley report to Mr Jefferson a variety of treasonable sentiments, which, whether said in jest or in anger, in moments of sportive festivity or of disputatious encounter during a wrangling session of Congress, are not surprising. The communicative diligence of Beckley, however, surpassed his discretion. His informations began to shake the confidence of Mr Jefferson; who notes one of them by saying, 'Beckley is too credulous.'
The facility with which expressions may be misapprehended, or do injustice to the intentions of the speaker, is shown in the last conversation which we shall quote. February the 6th, 1798. Mr Baldwin tells me, that in a conversation yesterday with Goodhue on the state of our affairs, Goodhue said, "I'll tell you what, I have made up my mind on this subject; I would rather the old ship should go down than not; " (meaning the union of the states.) Mr Hillhouse coming up, "Well," says Mr Baldwin, “I'll tell my old friend, Hillhouse, what you say;" and he told him. "Well," says Goodhue, "I repeat, that I would rather the old ship should go down, if we are always to be kept pumping so." "Mr Hillhouse," says Baldwin, "you remember, when we were learning logic together at school, there was the case categorical and the case hypothetical. Mr Goodhue stated it to me first, as the case categorical. I am glad that he now changes it to the case hypothetical, by adding, if we are always to be kept pumping so."
Now it is happy for Mr Goodhue, that his remark was not reported to Mr Jefferson in the sense in which it was first apprehended; and that another occasion allowed him to repeat it in one less criminal.
What do most of these conversations prove, if correctly reported? Not the real opinions of the speakers. For they have uniformly, on all grave and responsible occasions, avowed opposite opinions. Their conduct has been governed by opposite principles. They had no motive to disguise them. Are these fugitive remarks to be regarded as confessions of general hypocrisy? No. They prove merely, that men in mirth, in the heat of argument, or in the spirit of contradiction, use expressions which they would not attempt seriously to justify. It is one of the indulgences which give delight to unreserved intercourse, that one may sometimes say an extravagant thing without expecting to be called upon to prove it reasonable, or to find it reported and recorded. Dr. Johnson, according to his amiable biographer, advocated duelling, and apologized for gambling. At the table of Sir Joshua Reynolds he said, speaking of claret; Poor stuff! No, Sir, claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero (smiling) must drink brandy. In the first place, the flavor of brandy is most grateful to the palate; and then brandy will do soonest for a man what drinking can do for him. There are indeed few who are able to drink brandy. That is a power rather to be wished for than obtained. And yet (proceeded he) as in all pleasure, hope is a principal part, I know not but fruition comes too quick by brandy.'
The most interesting portion of the correspondence is that which Mr Jefferson, towards the close of life, held with Mr Adams. They had been coadjutors in former days of trial and danger. They had labored side by side in the same field. At length the separation of parties estranged them from each other. Each retired from the helm of state to his farm, his family, and his books. Their early companions had almost all disappeared; and they left alone among a new generation. The jealousies, inseparable from their late rivalry, neither of them wished any longer to feel or acknowledge, and whatever remained gradually gave place to the recollections of their ancient friendship. The infirmity of advanced age, which shows itself in the forgetfulness of recent events, while those of former days are still fresh in the mind, came in aid of their good
feelings. They more readily forgot the recent estrangement, and more easily returned to their former attachment. There was only wanting something to give occasion to the renewal of their correspondence. It thus occurred. Two of Mr Jefferson's neighbors having, by the invitation of Mr Adams, passed the day with him at Braintree; he remarked upon the injustice done by the licentiousness of the press to Mr Jefferson, adding; I always loved Jefferson, and still love him.' Mr Jefferson, in relating this anecdote, subjoins, This is enough for me. I only needed this acknowledgment, to revive to
wards him all the affections of the most cordial moments of our lives.' The ensuing remarks do honor to his candor and liberality.
'Changing a single word only in Dr Franklin's character of him, I knew him to be always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes incorrect and precipitate in his judgments; and it is known to those who have ever heard me speak of Mr Adams, that I have ever done him justice myself, and defended him when assailed by others, with the single exception as to his political opinions. But with a man possessing so many other estimable qualities, why should we be dissocialized by mere differences of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, or anything else. His opinions are as honestly formed as my own. Our different views of the same subject are the result of a difference in our organization and experience. I never withdrew from the society of any man on this account, although many have done it from me; much less should I do it from one with whom I had gone through, with hand and heart, so many trying scenes. I wish, therefore, but for an apposite occasion to express to Mr Adams my unchanged affections for him.' Vol. iv. p. 167.
Their former friendship thus revived, they continued to communicate to each other their opinions on government, morals, and religion. They amused their leisure by reviewing the speculations of Pythagoras and Plato, of Epicurus and Cicero, and derived a new pleasure from the studies of their youth, by applying to them the results of their long experience. The armor which, like old soldiers after their dismission from honorable service, they could no longer use, it was their pride to keep polished and retain in their sight. While all the busy world around them was engaged in the contentions of party or of business, they were peacefully interchanging their reminiscences of early life; inquiring after their surviving and departed companions; correcting inaccurate relations of their VOL. XXX.-No. 67.
own history; or comparing their reflections on the books which had become their resource and solace. It is to be lamented if now and then an unlucky spark from the passions of the world fell upon their retreat, and, enkindling an unhallowed flame in their own breasts, discovered that philosophy had not entirely removed from them all the old materials of combustion. Their strongest and latest feelings, however, were in favor of the liberty of men and of nations. It is a most interesting fact, which we repeat, that the last words of Mr Adams were those of patriotic ejaculation, responsive to the bell which then rung in celebration of the anniversary of our independence, and the last letter of Mr Jefferson was an expression of a hopeless wish to participate with his friends in the rejoicings on that day.' The same day, which had marked the most honorable epoch of their lives, was that in which Providence gave them the privilege to die.
The style and character of Mr Jefferson's writings resemble, in some respects, those of his friend Dr Franklin. They possess the charm of saying, without reserve or the appearance of studied ornament, the honest thoughts of the writer. They have a tone of good temper that wins the reader's partiality, and an earnestness that fixes his attention. They are like those well drawn portraits, which regard and follow us with their eyes in whatever direction we move. We do not suspect that the writer keeps anything back, but deals frankly and as a man of honor. In looking through this long series of letters, we find no change whatever in his principles. They continued in the same direction, extent, and impetus, through his life. If they overflowed the channels, in which prudence or reason would have confined them, he allowed them to pursue their natural course, and bear along or submerge whatever stood in their way: Another remark is, that whether he writes directly to an individual, or about him to a third person, the same sentiments are candidly expressed; and his opinions of public measures are conveyed in the same unequivocal language, whether addressed to their supporters or opponents.
He frequently indulged in the use of new words; and after his residence in France, his style was thought to partake of French idioms. There is, however, a great resemblance between his style in the page written in 1776, and that fifty years afterwards. The latter indeed flowed still more smoothly and with more facility. Perhaps, as was thought of Mr Hume,
the habits of expression acquired in the French language communicated to his sentences something of ease at the expense of energy.
Mr Jefferson also resembled Dr Franklin in the character of his mind and in his fortunes. Neither of them had a predilection for political concerns. The studies most congenial to their minds were the speculations of philosophy, the discoveries of science, and the pursuits of natural history. They each had a fondness for the mechanic arts. Engaged in similar objects, they enjoyed abroad the same scientific correspondence, and arrived at the same classical honors; and the traveller sees with pride their names associated and inscribed on the contributions, which America has made to the learned cabinets of Europe.
Dr Franklin also is more known as a writer than an orator. Some of his speeches are reported. Though they are distinguished by the peculiar and extraordinary features of his mind, and were always delivered with effect, yet it is remarked, that he never spoke longer than ten minutes. Mr Jefferson too, as has been remarked, wanting strength of voice, relied altogether upon his power of writing; and as nature is observed to compensate the loss of one sense by giving more force to another, so Mr Jefferson's disuse of public speaking seems to have thrown additional energies into his written composition.
ART. X.-CRITICAL NOTICES.
1.-The History of Louisiana, particularly of the Cession of that Colony to the United States of America; with an Introductory Essay on the Constitution and Government of the United States. By BARBE-MARBOIS. Translated from the French, by AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Philadelphia. Carey & Lea. 1830. 8vo. pp. 456.
ON a former occasion, when this work first appeared in France, we presented our readers with a brief analysis of its contents, and freely gave our opinion of its character and merits.* We recur
* See the North American Review for April, 1829, No. LXIII. p. 389.