640

HAMILTON'S CHARACTER.

[CHAP. XV. of State, like Chatham,' is a little addicted to personal squeamishness, there is a premier like the Duke of Newcastle, to manage what the historian Macaulay terms the "jobbing department." This is the old convenient arrangement of certain other business firms. There is the gentleman partner, and the partner for dirty work. We ought by way of illustration to name another usual addition, or appendage to such "firms." There is not only the buyer but the bought! From the Ministry just named, from men he had bitterly opposed and abhorred, Fox— a man of the first mark and rank in politics, and of scarcely less abilities than his illustrious son, Charles James Fox-received the wages of adhesion and ignominious silence, in the most lucrative office in the Government.

These illustrations might be swelled to any limits. The fact that the British administration had always resorted to corruption. as a part of its necessary measures to obtain and secure strength, is contradicted by no British historian. He who would have abundance of details on this subject is referred to the pages of Mr. Macaulay. If he would see the subject treated at some length, by itself, he is referred to the same author's review of Thackeray's History of the Earl of Chatham. After inspecting the testimony of the native witnesses, our liberality, in the preceding remarks, will not be impeached.

No apologist of Alexander Hamilton has denied that "theoretically" he believed the British Constitution was the "best form" a model which we ought to approach as near as possible." This was the life-long burden of that song which Mr. Morris declares was repeated by him so persistently, and so much to the annoyance of his more prudent friends. These laudations involve the administration as well as the written form -for all know that the Constitution of England exists more in established practice than in written instruments. But independently of all questions of definition, do we, from the first to the last, ever hear Hamilton, like John Adams, excepting the system of government corruption when lavishing praises on the British government? Do we find him attempting to avoid those corruptions in practice? This question will be better

1 Then Mr. Pitt.

2 First published in Edinburgh Review, 1834. These are his words from the "brief" of a speech in the Convention of 1787, already cited from his biography.

CHAP. XV.]

HAMILTON'S CHARACTER.

641

settled at a later period, but it is not altogether premature now. The circumstances accompanying the Funding Bill, the manner of the Assumption, the history of other bills, the scenes which attended the organization of the United States Bank, furnish evidence which does not demand the hints of Ames and the broad avowals of Morris,' for its explanation.

Hamilton's mind was perspicacious, logical, and strong in the wisdom of a beaten circle of precedents. But he never transcended that circle-never was in the least degree inventivenever struck out a new path either in theory or practice-never, in the whole course of his life, proposed an original thought or plan. He adapted and re-combined with promptness; but he who deliberately examines the history of his public career will look in vain for a system or even a marked feature of a system, not as directly and literally transferred from England, as the differences in the structure of the governments, in the condition. of those to be acted upon, and in the popular tone, would possibly admit. The highest attribute of the great statesman-to look forward, to adapt his measures to the progress of ideas, to create systems which will stand the test of a broader and deeper civilization-was not vouchsafed to him. His wisdom, to use some one's striking comparison when speaking of another person, was like the stern-lights of a ship. It cast all its light backward, over the course already passed over, and not a ray forward!

As long as the tremendous struggle was going on between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian construction of the United States Constitution-between the English theory of it and the democratic theory of it-Hamilton's plans, Hamilton's opinions, Hamilton's resounding name were on every tongue. When the outworks, all but the citadel of the seemingly massive structure, fell in 1801-when the citadel (the Supreme Court) was some years after carried over to the assailants by the death of a majority of its original defenders, what of Hamilton's remained? And now what great political truth, what important maxim in the science of government, what broad and benevolent view of human affairs, traces back to him as either its originator, or its practical developer, or its introducer on that part of the human theatre where his lot was cast? If there is one such, we confess

We mean Morris's avowals of his own views. See page 572. VOL I-41

642

HAMILTON'S CHARACTER.

[CHAP. XV.

it has eluded our scrutiny. To make a somewhat different application from the usual one of the often quoted words of Lucan: "Stat magni nominis umbra "-he stands but the shadow of a mighty name-apotheosized, as already remarked, by the American enemies of democratic theories, as the great type-man, the symbol of their idea.

A degree, and no inconsiderable degree, of "greatness" is here willingly conceded to Hamilton. It was not the greatness of a profoundly wise man in practice, who chances to entertain certain erroneous or inapplicable theories. He cannot be called wise in practice, all of whose structures, which could be rooted from our system without a breach of public faith, have already perished, as it were, in a night. Practical wisdom in the states man requires measures not only good in themselves, but suffi ciently adapted to existing circumstances to command something like permanent success. He certainly cannot be called wise in practice who "props" his edifice till he crushes it with the buttresses he builds against it-in other words, who, in his immoderate efforts to strengthen his system, provokes, nay, compels the opposition, which sweeps away much of it that might otherwise have been permitted to stand.

It is not to be denied that there were fair grounds for different constructions of the American Constitution. Nay, it did not prescribe, but left to the States a multitude of details, the settlement of which would virtually control that construction. Among the people of the States were three parties, the monarchical, the democratic, and the conservative republican. After the adoption of the federal Constitution, our opinion is that for a considerable period the two first were but handfuls-that the last comprised the body of both leaders and people. Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington were the representatives of these three parties. The rapid tendency of all popular governments in theory, is towards practical democracy. But our people were naturally and habitually cautious, and inclined to conservatism. They left beaten roads with reluctance. The opponents of pure democracy had the vantage ground, not only in numbers and the weight of names, but in the feelings of the people.

Had Hamilton understood the temper and character of the American people-had he identified himself with and prudently

CHAP. XV.]

HAMILTON'S CHARACTER.

643

fostered the conservative feeling-our government might have kept that track until it became fixed in it; and now we might have that mild mixed government in spirit which was the ideal of the middle men. But as Morris truly said, "meaning very well, he acted very ill, and approached the evils he apprehended by his very solicitude to keep them at a distance."' In plainer words, Hamilton upbuilt democracy by his overaction against it. He forced the people to choose between it and a consolidated system having all the spirit of monarchy, and which the people believed he ultimately (in some "crisis ") intended to give the form of monarchy. He thus rashly and unnecessarily threw all into the scale, and he lost all.

Finally, Hamilton was not a great or a wise man in practice, in the sense in which the words are used to mark the distinction between the efficient performer and the visionary theorist. With the terms "projector," "speculative dreamer," "philosopher," etc., often tauntingly on his lips in respect to opponents, none in all the number formed half so many purely chimerical schemes, or half so often failed in them, as himself. The figures cast on the wall by a magic lantern are scarcely more evanescent, and considering the people and circumstances among whom they were formed, scarcely more unsubstantial than those which swiftly followed each other through his teeming brain. When his authority became full blown, each year brought a new grand scheme from him, embracing public affairs generally, and it would now be difficult to believe that they were the propositions of an American statesman—that they were not forgeries to impeach his common sense-did we not find them in an authorized and family edition of his works.

But Hamilton, in addition to remarkably clear and vigorous intellectual capacities, possessed one kind of practical greatness -that of execution. Whether his theory was sound, or his practice wise, the executive process was marked by promptness and strength. His mental operations were rapid and lucid His best judgment, if not his only judgment, came to maturity on the investigation of minutes or hours, instead of days or weeks. He could give a fertile display of reasons for his opinion, always fortified by a plausible, and when he was in the

1 Letter to Walsh, Feb. 5, 1811.

644

HAMILTON'S CHARACTER.

[CHAP. XV.

right, by a piercing logic. He had at ready command a store of apt and sonorous words. Whether it was his business to do, to speak, or to write, he was ready on the instant; and his activity and industry never flagged until his cause was won or lost.

Hamilton had that superlative confidence in himself, that unbounded self-esteem which in the weak provokes derision, in the able, inspires confidence. In his party he assumed the tone of an absolute and undisputed dictator. The position was conceded to him for a time, partly from his real ability and partly because those were the only terms on which his coöperation could be secured. Circumstances gave him a weight possessed by no other man in that party. None liked to provoke his hostility by opposition or disobedience. Mr. Adams ventured to do so and it proved fatal to him. Morris softens these characteristics of his friend by giving them the name of "a pertinacious adherence to opinions he had once formed." This pertinacity extended from things of prime importance down to almost inconsiderable details, and it was evinced as freely in matters where other men were by law or custom intrusted with the sole decision, and compelled to assume the sole responsibility, as in those where he was properly a principal sharer in both. The boy who at twelve years old "wished there was a war" to enable him to "exalt his station;" who at twenty thought it was a sacrifice to become an aid-de-camp of Washington; who always "did violence to his feelings" while he remained in that post; and who at twenty-four refused to "consent to an accommodation" with the latter for a hasty word followed by an ample apology, would never be expected, in after life, to doubt his own infallibility and right to command, or that the world was "his oyster" made specially for his opening and for his disposition of its contents.

All these traits added to that executive power which we have said Hamilton possessed. To act with the greatest velocity and intensity, the mind of the actor must be troubled with no misgivings about the accuracy of its own conclusions. Nor must it pause to ask too scrupulously whether the rights of opinion, the feelings or the delicacies of others are to be invaded. The most efficient political executive is a despot. The most efficient actor elsewhere is he who acts on the princi ples of a despot.