It is certainly not a mere speculation which has thought to discover in the history of the New England settlements some of the elements of the character of the modern Yankee. We must, however, take care not to push the speculation too far. It has been often an over-refinement in the treatment of history to trace up the character of nations to differences in race and blood; forgetting how much of that character is due to those developments of events and interests which have taken place between the first beginnings of a people and the period of historical retrospect. We are not disposed to risk the analysis of the modern Yankee character on those elements of race and blood which were involved in the early settlement of America. We shall see, in the progress of this inquiry, how much of this character was due to subsequent development and education in the crooked paths of their political history, and what a large and various addition of meanness was thus made to the nature and habit of the original New England colonist.

But in that early type of the colonist we certainly do discover some traits, more or less imperfect, of the Yankee of a later period. We would only warn the reader from expecting to discover too much here, reminding him that the character of a people, although undoubtedly deriving some elements from its ancestry, takes, as does the individual life, additions and modifications from the school of events and influences; that, in short, the geometrical accuracy of ethnology is an imperfect and sophistical guide to the truth of history.

Modern events have most largely produced the Yankee of our day. Yet in the sniffling Puritan, with his stock of pious excuses for every ferocious scheme of selfishness, and in the Massachusetts "trader," with his early code of commercial politics, which, in fact, he carried into the revolution of 1776, we find no slight likeness to the present generation of their Northern descendants. It is not overstating the case to say, that the New England colonies went into the revolution rather resenting the restraints upon their commerce than animated by the pure love of liberty. Their commercial casuistry had long defied the laws and authority of the mother country. Sir William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia, when remonstrating, in 1671, against the Navigation Act cutting off all trade with foreign countries, made it the subject of particular

complaint that, while the Virginians were "most obedient to all laws, the New England men break through, and men trade to any place that their interest leads them." He had already discovered two different rules of public morals in the beginnings of American history.

It

It is no wonder that the confederation, despite the plain military necessity which demanded it, was an achievement of no little difficulty, and a bond of very partial and imperfect effect. It was debated for nearly five years. It was not consummated until the 1st of March, 1781. It lasted nominally about eight years, but, practically, not more than two. was distinctly founded on the sovereignty of the States; was ratified by the State legislatures, and gave Congress the power of determining questions only by the vote of the States. True, it was something more than a military alliance. It was intended to unite the resources of the States, and to establish a foundation for public credit for the purposes of the war. It was intended for nothing more. In the circular letter of Congress, urging the reluctant States to accede to the confederation, they were urged "to conclude the glorious compact, which, by uniting the wealth, strength, and councils of the whole, might bid defiance to external violence and internal dissensions, whilst it secured the public credit at home and abroad."

The compact had been ostentatiously styled in its title a "perpetual Union," and Mr. John Adams, of Massachusetts, had really desired to incorporate into it the features of a consolidated government. These, however, were the fancies of ignorance, and the dreams of extravagance. The confederation, indeed, even as an association to give a common direction to, and create a common fund for, the war, was very imperfect and lamentably loose. It had no power to reach individuals, and to enforce the common will of the States. It could only apportion the quota to be paid by each State, but had no way of compelling the payment. It could make commercial treaties with foreign States, but, unless the legislatures of the States chose to adopt such commercial regulations in their ports as might be necessary, the treaties might be utterly inoperative. Such an anomaly, such a weak pretence of a common government, could scarcely be expected to last beyond the war, of which it was the makeshift. At the peace, it naturally went

to pieces. "Each State," says Madison, "yielding to the voice of immediate interest or convenience, withdrew its support from the confederation, till the frail and tottering edifice was ready to fall upon our heads and crush us beneath its ruins." The "perpetual Union" was practically terminated by the uninterrupted free will of the States which composed it.

The treaty of 1783, which crowned the success of the American revolution, contained the only description which had ever been made, on the part of Great Britain, of the nature of the new power which was recognized in recognizing American independence. What was recognized, was the independence severally of the thirteen States formerly colonies. And it is especially to be remarked that these States were recognized severally, and not jointly, in the treaty.

The revolution was thus crowned with success. But it is doubtful whether there was any merit in obtaining it other than endurance. The American armies were generally unsuccessful; the American troops-however American vanity may proclaim the contrary-fought no better than the British veterans. George Washington was not a military genius. The diplomacy of the revolution was neither a monument of wisdom nor of letters.* The result of the war was the triumph of the endurance of a people resolved to be free, over the less determined wishes and interests of those who desired merely an ad. dition of empire.

The war of the American States added another illustration to a curious fact in all history. This fact is, that no system of liberty ever yet emanated from the generosity or wisdom of human rulers; it has invariably been the fruit of rebellionthe result of a contest between the natural tendency of power to centralize and exaggerate its authority, and the opposition of its subjects, naturally intermittent, in its checks on usurpation.

* It is true that the American States, in their war with Great Britain, made connections and some advantageous arrangements in Europe; but these were natural results, rather than skilful achievements. The diplomacy of the revolution was a botch. In the beginning of the revolution the foreign correspondence was intrusted to a committee. The confederation included a department of foreign affairs; but the secretary had no power to perform any thing but the specific acts authorized by Congress, which, at that time, was at once the executive and the legislative power.

We embrace here the two conditions of history: the tendency of all political power, and the disposition of its subjects. So true are these of man, everywhere, that they have passed into two general declarations, which have the force of maxims. The first is, that "tyranny, when possible, is always certain." The second is found in the text of the American Declaration of Independence: "All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

III.

The times of Thomas Jefferson.-Manners and appearance of the man.-His Democracy. Its application to the relations of the States and Federal Government.-Origin of the Republican or Democratic party.-The idea of consolidation.-Now York, and the New England States.-Early political preaching in New England.The Alien and Sedition laws.-How the latter infringed the rights of the States.The Kentucky Resolutions.-A fact not in the record.-Mr. Jefferson on "nullification."- -Why the Kentucky Resolutions were modified.-The Virginia Resolutions. -The replies of the New England States, and of New York.-Jefferson's triumph. -A new era at Washington.

IT has been fashionable for two generations to entitle Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, the father of the Democratic party of America. Unlike most of the party phrases of tradition, this is strictly true.

The name of Jefferson fills a large space in American history; it is identified with an important and enraged political crisis; it is connected with much of party controversy; and for more than sixty years his name has been, on the one hand, adorned with titles of popular adulation, and on the other, coupled with the very same terms which Hamilton, his contemporary enemy, and the best representative of Federalist rancor, applied to him-" an atheist in religion, and a fanatic in politics."

Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable man. He was thoroughly a Virginian; and he was by nature a Democrat. Born of a moderate family in Chesterfield County, he carried, through all the honors and illustrious passages of his life, the plain, unostentatious, and kindly manners of a Virginia farmer. His sandy hair, and strong features, and large bones, were Virginian. His dress had always the quaintness of a countryman; he wore under-waistcoats and woollen tippets; and his manners, unaffected as his dress, invited all classes of persons to approach him.

We have said that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat by nature. His official residence in France, as minister to that court from 1784 to 1789, is reported to have been the occasion