Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

we are free to own, that it is one we have no right to complain of; if it is not absolutely just and right, it is something not very far from it.

Nor can we lay our hands on our hearts and say, on honor bright, that it was entirely undeserved on our own part, after all. We had not been-no party could have been-so long in power, especially under all the existing circumstances, without having contracted sundry sins of both omission and commission; and with the same certainty that drags the shadow after the substance, does an inevitable retribution, to parties as to men, follow every fault and every folly they are ever guilty of. Our great blunder, indeed, of the Pet Bank experiment, entailed a long series of consequences which made it eventually one of the heaviest of the weights that bore us down-a measure adopted at the express rejection of that very one which at a later day we so justly hailed with delight, when brought forward under different party auspices. We meant well, to be sure, in that most ill-starred of experiments-and it was at any rate better than the alternative of the other side, the Recharter of Mr. Biddle, but good intent is no excuse, to the inexorable justice of the providence of events, for great political errors. And when we remember all the practical mischief we did by stimulating the expansion of the currency through the distribution of the vast accumulated deposits among the banks-with even a charge of interest to them, and at one time an official encouragement to them to apply them liberally to the "relief" of the community-when we remember the prophetic warnings from the Opposition of the very consequences which indeed were not slow to develope themselves-what right have we to complain if we had ourselves to swallow a very bitter dose of retribution for our fatal error? The punishment came at first in 1837, but was arrested for a season by the god-send of the Sub-Treasury-(the stone the builders had rejected becoming the key of the corner)-and by the splendid conduct of our leader, in the Presidency, and of our numerous other powerful champions and advocates, in the debates of the tongue and the pen, both in Congress and the country at large. But the blow was only parried-the

weapon was not broken. The foe was only repulsed-to return in a still more sweeping cloud of attack. And in 1840, when the strength of the merits and popularity of the Independent Treasury, as a measure of party contest, (which had alone rallied and saved us in 1838-9), was somewhat spent, by the fact of its establishment as law, and its passage out of the immediate range of the discussions of the day, then came our hour of retribution, which the accident of events, and the gallant genius of a man, had postponed but could not avert.

We cannot afford to dwell upon the other principal elements of the revolution, or rather the revulsion, of 1840such as the low agricultural prices and the protracted commercial pressure, to all which Whiggism offered remedy and relief-the continued derangement of the banking system, and the active power of the great interest of insolvency, ready to move heaven, earth and hell for a Bankrupt Act-the unparal-' leled system of party organization and effort by which the most efficient electioneering influence was brought home to every door where dwelt a possibly doubtful vote-together with those more than suspected election frauds which the Census returns so soon revealed, when in some States they showed in so many counties of strong Whig majorities the number of votes returned to have far exceeded the entire number of males above the age of twenty-one. All these and other topics that naturally connect themselves with the subject, we can do no more than thus allude to. But there are two things which ought not to be lost sight of in judging the period to which we refer, and the conduct of the people in it. The first is that it was not by means of, but in spite of, their miserable Log Cabin mummeries that the Whigs succeeded as they did. And the second is, that if they did succeed, with all the disadvantages oppressing our position, it was only by pursuing such a course in relation to the real principles at issue between the parties, as to paralyze their own future power to do harm, by those very means of dissimulation, and conflicting profession in dif ferent sections, to which in so large a degree that success was due.

Thus much in apology for the People for the events, scenes and results of

1840; and in deprecation of Mr. Brownson's inference from the experience of that year, that our long-cherished confidence in their capacity for self-government is all a fond folly. They did, we repeat, just about right, and with all our fine theories, patriotic purposes, and lofty statesmen and statesmanship, served us just about right.

Democracy lays no claim to infallibility for the People. The phrase Vox populi Vox Dei does not mean that the vote of a majority is the perfection of reason,-nor in its proper sense is there any "blasphemy" in it. Mr. Brownson asks whether those who talk of their "confidence in the virtue, intelligence and capacity of the people," really mean to say "that the people acting individually or collectively never do, and never can do any wrong?" Why ask a question to which no answer was seriously expected? Collectively, as individually, the People of course both can do and often have done, and will often continue to do, very wrong-very foolishly, aye, and sometimes very wickedly, wrong. And yet after all, in the long run, Democracy, with its Liberty and Equality of Rights and Chances, is a something far better than any of the other forms of government by which the Few have in all ages and countries plundered and defrauded the Many-be they monarchies, aristocracies, or (last and worst) theocracies. All these expressions of "confidence" in the People are merely comparative and relative. Far better they should govern themselves, than be even for a while better governed by any force extraneous to themselves. Far better that the child should rough it through its first necessary stumbles and bumps on its own natural legs, than be for ever borne in the arms of the skilfullest nurse or the tenderest mother. Give us, we say, rather SelfGovernment-Self-Reliance-Self-Development-Freedom-yes, freedom to make mistakes, if you please, but then also to mend them; to reach the "kingdom of heaven" in our own way, even though it must be "through much tribulation"-than the best and wisest extraneous government that ever remained pure for twenty-four hours. Give us, we say, such a state-with Free-Will, Conscience, Reason, and the Bible-to let us grow, from inward outward, through vice into virtue,

through folly into wisdom, in the sole way in which humanity can grow up to its full and perfect stature-rather than the external and superincumbent pressure of any possible, any conceivable government, though its Grand Turk be the Angel Gabriel.

Mr. Brownson enumerates various practical measures on which the people have not acted up to his and our lights of truth. Well-many of these propositions appear plain enough to us who have made ourselves familiar with them, but have we therefore a right to charge stupidity and folly upon the People for not taking equally clear views of them? On the contrary, may there not be a higher wisdom manifesting itself through this instinctive action of great masses, which would rebuke our short-sighted speculations, our partial views of truth and policy? Though abstractly right and logical "per se," yet does not the very fact that our ideas are not yet fully imbibed and absorbed by the People, go to show that they are not yet quite ready for their practical application? And as it is an essential part of the true wisdom of reform, to pay its full due regard to the existing state of preparation, moral and physical, for the wholesome reception and digestion of its proposed changes, is there not perhaps a most precious conservative wisdom in this very slowness and difficulty exhibited by the popular mind to admit even the clearest abstract demonstrations that may be offered them ?-however it may fret the impatience of the eager reformer and stir his angry bile. We do not think he will mend the matter much—(even if it need mending or ought to be mended)-by flying into a passion with the people, and chiming in with their immemorial enemies and slanderers to abuse them as fools or denounce them as

knaves. Their very conduct, whether in doing what Mr. Brownson thinks they ought not to have done, or leaving undone what he thinks they ought to have done, could he but look far, wide, and deep, into all the elements and over all the ultimate bearings of the question, may peradventure have been

nay, we doubt not, was-the very best they could have adopted; that is to say, then, there, and for them.

We sincerely trust that we do not exaggerate the extent to which Mr. Brownson means to state the sentiment

we thus combat,-but we must confess that the general current and direction of his Article look very suspiciously like the usual process by which, after passing the grand climacteric of life, the young Liberal so often becomes metamorphosed into the old Conservative; and we are generally prone to listen with distrust to this kind of discouraging and disheartening preaching which the latter is so often apt to address to the former, in a manner whose very patronizing and pitying kindness is far more fatal to all his generous aspirations and efforts, than all the scornful sneers, or the honestly contemptuous denunciations, of ancient and avowed aristocracy. The day may yet await us when we ourselves shall similarly (similarly, we say, to the general process alluded to, without imputing it as yet certainly to our highly valued and respected correspondent), slough off into a cold, doubting, distrust ing conservatism, as flake after flake of the snow of years shall begin to streak our head with its whiteness, and to strike down to the blood of our heart with its wintry chill. Till the arrival of that day, we trust that we shall continue to feel and to think the feelings and thoughts which prompt the Protest of our present remarks;—and when it comes, we shall hold ourselves bound, on the appearance of our first grey hair, to surrender into younger and fitter hands the place we now regard as one of the highest honor and satisfaction, the Editorship of the Democratic Review.

sides of life and action, not immediately pressed upon by any external force of governing power-(and these comprise far the greater part of existence). There is indeed, to both, a government governing even this very absence of other and lower forms of government,-that, namely, which issues from the inner throne of the Reason, with thought for its legislative, freewill its executive, and conscience its judiciary; but this is only another mode of stating that freedom, for the "Sovereignty of the People," from all human authority paramount to itself, for which we contend. A constitution is indeed its self-adopted rule of actionchangeable, like a resolution or selfpledge, by the same power which adopted or has chosen to tolerate it. The general good sense, the social vis inertia, the universal spirit of a true and good conservatism prevailing in any community enlightened enough to have achieved the possession of a free constitution, will be sufficient guaranties against abuse of this rightful power of change of constitution; and when good and fair methods have been agreed upon and established for such practical changes, there is no danger of ever finding any large number of persons attempting revolutionary methods of doing the same thing. However, we must content ourselves with these slight suggestive hints on this point,nor need we be unwilling to leave it for the present to the reflections of the intelligent reader.

Upon the points of the preceding But scant space remains for a single paper in which we agree with our remark on the tangent course in which esteemed friend and correspondent, we Mr. Brownson seems to have struck have not thought it necessary to reout into a far extreme of daring heresy mark. We are not so centrifugal in respecting the "Sovereignty of the our radicalism as to be insensible to People." Is he not refining with too the importance of the co-ordinate cenmuch of a scholastic subtlety on the tripetal principle of conservatism, for word on which he returns so often to all harmonious order and movement. harp, "government ?" He argues that Perhaps we differ less widely, after we it is no government, if beneath all its get below the surface of names and forms and machinery there underlies phrases, than some readers of this blast the right of the popular will to change and counterblast, this bane and antithem all, in its own sovereignly su- dote, may be apt to imagine. We preme and irresponsible way. But most sincerely hope so-for the loss of this is exactly what we best like, self- Brownson would indeed be the loss of government, not only in the practical a more than Ajax Telamon to the organization of its modes, but in the camp of Democracy. Long distant be primary principle of that very organi- the day when we shall have to rezation. Nations must be laws unto cord and lament that so great a man themselves; just as individuals are, has fallen in Israel. and must necessarily be, on all the

ROYAL AUTHORS.

THERE is but one genuine form of aristocracy-not pertaining to government, however, not founded upon any conventional refinements of society, unsupported by any pretensions to wealth or communicable dignities, but presupposing an inherent right to command and take the lead, existing in all its purity in an order of nobility which we do not read of in books of heraldry-in the sacred caste, whose title of honor is preconfirmed by Heaven and ordained by the Founder of the Universe and the Father of Man,the Nobility of Nature, or rather of genius; as a great writer familiarly styles it, God Almighty's Nobility. By this term, we do not mean the rule of the doctrinaires, or government of the wisest, but the joint rule of the wisest and best. To enter this exalted class, is rarely the reward of exertion. It is the natural birthright of the choicest spirits, a privilege, and the gift of heaven. Though the possessor of this be by the world despised, honored still by the few whose eulogium is fame, yet is his claim indirectly respect ed-his name secretly reverenced even by the rich and mighty, who seek admission within the portals of the Temple of Fame.

Democratic as we are, we yet contend, right loyally and reverently, for the sovereignty of mind, the aristocracy of genius, the high rank and precedence of talent. There are kings in intellect, if not of the state, even here. There is the Magician of Poesy, if not of occult science. Poetry itself is that long sought philosopher's stone, the last effect of the true art of alchemy. The Republic of Letters has been singularly so named. It is to be feared that, like a Patriot King, it is a mere chime

ra.

Hood's witty pun explains a part of the mystery. He said that the commonwealth of letters was called a republic, because the members composing it could not muster a sovereign among them. But this is true of only a portion of the literary world. Lite rature, no less than commerce, has her Rothschilds and Barings. Some men

have amassed fortunes by authorship as well as by trade, and have lost them as unfortunately. Not a few authors have been "born with a silver spoon in their mouths;" yet, as a general truth, it may be justly stated, that literature includes within its pale authors and scholars of every condition, both as to birth and fortune. From royalty down to beggary; through the ranks of wealth, and competence, down to grinding want.

If such difference in point of property and worldly possessions be allowed, and we conceive it cannot be fairly questioned, in the case of men of letters, how much greater and more inherent must be admitted, the distinctions of intellectual acquisitions and original mental gifts. Who would place Shakspeare and Foote in the same category, though both wrote for the stage? And between Plato and Tom Paine exists the very widest discrepancy. As the disproportionate allotment of original power is so various, then, it must of necessity be conceded that there must arise natural leaders, instinctive philosophers, "heaven-born" and directed statesmen; authors of the first stamp, by the divine right of Na

ture.

This aristocracy once admitted, we yet allow the claims of no other aristocracy. The mere rich man may not be of it, nor the haughty noble; and, least of all, the royal claimant, as the exhibition of power is too apt to diminish as you exceed the scale of fictitious rank. Yet each and all adventure a whole fortune of hope, at least ofttimes, if not a treasury of merits, in the game of literary skill. It appears to be one of the usual disadvantages of royalty and hereditary titles in general, that the holders of them rarely equal their names. The incumbent holds his position in society, and is apt to be rated purely from that fact. With the public at large, a literary nobleman, or a philosophic monarch, appears to be considered an anomaly, though some of the most popular of English writers have either come out

from the ranks of the nobility or from commoners, have been ennobled for their works; and in spite of the names among kings of quite late date, James I., Charles I., of the house of Stuart; Frederick the Great, and Joseph II. The crown is supposed to atone for the lack of brains under it; and the Star and Garter, and the Golden Fleece, to represent and conceal a deficiency of all the qualities and resources that render famous the scholar, the thinker, and the true author. We are apt to think a king should rest satisfied with his throne and the brilliant appendages to it. Prejudice, perhaps, has inclined us to suspect, that his eyes would naturally become dimmed by gazing intently on the dazzling splendor of a court and the magnificence of national treasure, and become incapable of viewing steadily and coolly, the great problems of life and society. The education of princes is not that best fitted for the vigorous exercise of their understanding, or the refinement of the affections. Their will is pampered to such an excess, their judgments are so deferred to by the wise and great, that it is almost a miracle that they are not all tyrants and bigoted. If, however, smitten with the love of song, or impressed with the maxims of philosophy, the heir of a throne seeks to reach more permanent glories in another path, and relies on individual and intrinsic merits to obtain that lasting renown, which, all his life-long glory, accorded merely to his rank and office, cannot secure to him, we are obliged in candor to admit his abilities, however small, and to applaud the employment of them, however inefficient that may prove. Should the prince, at the same time, show himself a poet or genuine philosopher, or even an ingenious critic and expert logician, we should be ready to estimate him accordingly. But of this high standard of regal genius we know not of one striking example. There have been lively wits, multifarious scholars, "pretty" poets, elaborate historians among kings, but not one author truly great in any department of literature or philosophy. Yet pretenders to literature and philosophy have not been unfrequent among crowned heads. There have been kings great men, great legislators, warriors, pedants, theologians, controversialists, fine gentlemen; but none poets, philosophers, ✓50

VOL. XII.-NO. LVIII.

or original thinkers. The latter might befit a reformation of abuses, and this is in no wise considered the duty of a king. Many sovereigns have been accomplished in all the graces of a complete education, but the essentials, imparted to the sons of private gentlemen, have been left out of consideration. In speaking of kings, we refer not to monarchs inspired directly and uniting with divine authority. We include not in this list the Hebrew psalmist and the royal philosopher, the master of life, his son. Nor do we forget the philosophy and pure life of Antoninus, nor the bold independence (however extravagant or erroneous) of Julian. Certain eminent characters, especially in the ancient world, have in fact really exercised the influence of sovereigns, under some other name than that of king, as Moses the legislator and Pericles the prime minister; Cæsar the dictator, and of late years Napoleon the first consul. The all-accomplished, the admirable Alfred, is a glorious exception to our sweeping generalization. But of the vast herd of kings our remark holds good. The office is more than the man, and the man more than the scholar or writer. First, the regal; then, the personal; last of all, the literary character. In this enumeration, we find letters are but indifferently honored after all; holding the lowest place as it were, and a merely incidental regard; viewed somewhat as an elegant accomplishment like dancing or horsemanship, "the Corinthian capital of the social order."

In the present paper, we shall aim to determine two points: 1st, the proper position of a sovereign with regard to the claims of letters upon him, personally; and 2d, we shall attempt an historical sketch of the monarchs popularly known as writers, confining ourselves, after a brief review, chiefly to the first two Stuarts, James and Charles.

Should a king, merely from inclination, without a strong native genius, pursue the path of literary exertion? As a general answer, we should say, not. A king is the head of his government, and strictly the highest executive officer in it. The writer legislates, teaches, entertains; but carries out nothing into action. The monarch should be the greatest active man in

« AnteriorContinuar »