>>m 
 
 Political Situation 
 
 >- i^i 
 
 :^ 
 
THE 
 
 Political Situation. 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 -BY— 
 
 JULIAN S. SPENCE. 
 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1883, by F. C. Festner, . 
 in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
£*r 
 
The Political Situation. 
 
 2>T-u.zn"ber 1. 
 
 The venerable Horatio Seymour and the Hon. 
 George S. Boutwell, in the North American Re- 
 view iox February, 1883, asseverate and theorize on 
 * 'The Political Situation". 
 
 A perusal of the respective articles, at once dis- 
 closes the political animus of the one, and the firm 
 self-assured convictions of the other. The assever- 
 ations of the one, approaching so closely the 
 exhalations of passion, prejudice and disappoint- 
 ment, scarcely rise above the ordinary newspaper 
 tirade. The bold, frank, dispassionate conclusions 
 of the other, evidence a hope that is not yet 
 dead, which, it must be conceded, is always the 
 better way to deal with unpropitious foreshadow- 
 ings. 
 
 Mr. Boutwell says: "The recent overthrow of 
 the Republican party is not an exceptional event in 
 
4 
 
 political affairs, nor need we infer therefrom that 
 its days of power are past." 
 
 Mr. Seymour says : "The result of this year's 
 elections, (1882), have excited much comment. 
 At first view they seemed to be due to the dissen- 
 tions in the republican ranks, but on closer study 
 their explanation is found to lie deeper ; it is a 
 ground swell, of which all surface disturbances are 
 effects, not causes. To get an understanding of 
 this subject, it is necessary that we dismiss from 
 our minds all partizan prejudices, for it concerns 
 the organic principles of our Government, and de- 
 mands a thoughtful consideration." 
 
 These opinions show the opposite degrees of sig- 
 nificance which these two political thinkers are 
 inclined to attach to the late republican reverses 
 throughout the country. 
 
 According to the one, it is but little more than an 
 ordinary affair, and that there is yet hope for the 
 country. According to the other, it is an event of 
 momentous impoi - t, involving the "organic princi- 
 ples of our Government". 
 
 It is however, that part of the article appearing 
 under the signature of Mr. Seymour with which I 
 have more particularly to do, and to which I am 
 induced to offer this humble reply. *. 
 
 The author having been so long out of politics, 
 has had ample time for studious observation, and 
 
5 ; 
 
 the maturing of a judgment presumably ripe for 
 political thought. Whatever may have been his 
 habits in respect to a close observation of the signs 
 of the times, in their relation to the science of pol- 
 itics, during these years of retirement, it is quite 
 evident that he has not dismissed entirely from his 
 mind, as he would have us infer, all "partizan 
 prejudices," in the discussion of this question. 
 
 Aside from a few general principles, and the 
 statement of a few undeniable facts, his assertions 
 in respect to the ti'ue causes of the present political 
 situation, are mere nudas allcgationcs, which, to 
 one whose whole life has been spent outside the 
 pale of political dissentions, who has been a silent, 
 though interested observer of the strifes and tur- 
 moils of the contending elements, are not argu- 
 ments of weight or importance. 
 
 But, since the question "concerns the organic 
 principles of our Government, and demands a 
 thoughtful consideration," it is well that all parti- 
 san prejudices be dismissed, and that it be met 
 candidly and fairly, without aspersions on the one 
 hand, or egotistical assumptions on the other — and 
 least of all, criminations which may be unfounded, 
 for no one knows better than the sober, political 
 thinker that these are not arguments calculated to 
 
convince the reason, whatever influence they may 
 otherwise have. 
 
 Mr. Seymour's apprehended dangers to the Gov- 
 ment are little varied from those of Thomas Jef- 
 ferson, the father of Mr. Seymonr's political creed. 
 
 A comparison of the two, in a single instance* 
 will sufficiently demonstrate the similarity. Mr. 
 Seymour says : 
 
 "The American people are divided into two 
 parties ; these grow out of the form of our Gov- 
 ernment, and each is needed for its preservation. 
 All agree that there is a division line between the 
 powers of the General and State Governments. To 
 enlarge unduly the powers of the States endangers 
 the Union. To extend unduly the jurisdiction of 
 Congress leads to corruption. * * * * * a 
 feeling grew up that the stability of the General 
 Government might be insured by giving to it larger 
 powers. Jurisdiction was mistaken for strength. 
 This sentiment was carried too far ; for, while 
 State Rights have been unduly magnified, they still 
 exist, and are as sacred as the rights of the Gen- 
 eral Government." 
 
 Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State under 
 Washington. During his second term, Alexander 
 Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury ; John 
 Adams was Vice-President. Hamilton, Washing- 
 ton and Adams were leaders of the Federal party ; 
 
7 
 Thomas Jefferson was leader of the "Anties" or 
 "Republican party. 
 
 Hamilton and Jefferson became bitter political 
 enemies, and the latter eventually proved to be a 
 disturbing- element in the- administration. 
 
 While there does not appear to have been any 
 absolute rupture between him and the President, 
 nevertheless, Mr. Jefferson was soon forced to 
 retire from office, and it was on his return to his 
 seat at Monticello that he wrote his famous letter 
 to Mazzei, his Italian friend, in which he portrays 
 the dangers to the Government, as he conceived 
 them to be, as follows : 
 
 "The aspect of our politics has wonderfully 
 changed since you left us April 24, 1796. In 
 place of that noble love of liberty and republican 
 government which carried us triumphantly through 
 the war, an anglican monarchical and aristocrat- 
 ical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is 
 to draw over us the substance, as they have already 
 done the forms, of the British Government. * * 
 * * Against us are the executive, the judiciary, 
 two out of the three branches of legislati***-, all the 
 officers of the Government, all who want to be 
 officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of 
 despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty ; British 
 merchants and Americans trading on British capi- 
 tals, speculators and holders in the banks and 
 public funds, a contrivance invented for the pur- 
 
8 
 
 pose of corruption, and for assimilating us in all 
 things to the rotten, as well as to the sound parts 
 <of the British model. 
 
 It would give you a fever were I to name to you 
 the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, 
 men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons 
 in the council, but who have had their heads shorn 
 by the harlot of England. 
 
 In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we 
 .have obtained only by unremitting labors and 
 perils. But we shall preserve it ; and our mass 
 and weight of wealth on the good side is so great 
 as to leave no danger that force will ever be at- 
 tempted against us. 
 
 We have only to awake and snap the liliputian 
 cords with which they have been entangling us 
 •during the first sleep which succeeded our labors." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, at the time he penned this letter, 
 was one of the "outs," as was also Mr. Seymour 
 when he wrote this article. The former was 
 sorely troubled with political nausea, superinduced 
 by the great popularity and consequent success of 
 his political rivals ; while the latter had been tossed 
 about on the waves of the great sea of politics, until 
 every aspiration of mind, every hope of his nature, 
 were clouded over with misgivings, with doubts, 
 with uncertainties. 
 
 The same principle moved them both to throw 
 out these warnings. The difference in circum- 
 
9 
 stances surrounding) them, respectively, at the 
 different epochs, accounts for the variance in the 
 degree of intensity, with which their feelings, 
 thoughts and apprehensions are portrayed ; and 
 this constitutes the chief dissimilarity. 
 
 It will be seen from this that the democratic cry 
 of "danger'' is not new. Having its inception in 
 the mind of the father of the party, it has become 
 hereditary, and after this laps of a hundred and 
 ten years it has lost none of its direfulness, but 
 little of its vigor. No one will dispute the fact 
 that the country, while it has continued to live, has 
 prospered as well. This being so I am prompted 
 — not that I deem it expedient — to give some slight 
 attention to Mr. Seymour's reiterated cry of 
 (danger, to be resolved whether there is any danger 
 after all these years of growth and prosperity. 
 
 I repeat then, Mr. Seymour says : 
 
 " The American people are divided into two 
 parties." He does not identify, in express terms, 
 the personnel of these parties, but says : "These 
 grow out of the form of our government ; each is 
 needed for its preservation." In the next sentence 
 we get an inkling. He continues : "All agree that 
 there is a division line between the powers of the 
 General and State Governments. To enlarge un- 
 duly the powers of the States endangers the Union. 
 
IO 
 
 To extend unduly the jurisdiction of Congress 
 leads to corruption." 
 
 Admitting these as general propositions, the 
 secret tenor of the author's train of thought is here 
 disclosed. The two great parties into which the 
 American people are divided can be none other than 
 the two grand divisions of people residing respect- 
 ive!} 7 on either side of that imaginary line estab- 
 lished in ante-bellum days and ascribed to "Mason 
 and Dixon." That this is the author's ulterior 
 meaning becomes a settled conviction when we 
 consider the fact that he has, during a long politi- 
 cal life been, by choice and affiliation, a member 
 of the political party whose watchword has been 
 from early the interminable cry of ''State Rights," 
 that bugbear of constitutional government, nowhere 
 agitated more bitterly, nowhere resultant of less 
 important consequences. 
 
 He says : "The division of our countrv into 
 free and slave States, led the latter, out of fear 
 of Federal interferance, to carry the doctrine of 
 State Rights too far. Civil war was the result." 
 
 In how far the present political situation is at- 
 tributable to this ostensible truth it seems to be diffi- 
 cult to discover; but a close observer of the political 
 events of this country will not readily coincide in 
 this statement of fact. 
 
II 
 
 The doctrine of "State Rights,*' as much as it 
 has been agitated in Congress and out of Congress 
 by parties or individuals, never resulted in any- 
 thing quite so serious as civil war. The most that 
 can be said of it is, that it had an indirect tenden- 
 cy, combined with other more potent forces, to 
 precipitate that sanguinary result. 
 
 I do not feel called upon to enumerate historical 
 facts, but during the long time that the democratic 
 party had control of national affairs in cannot be 
 denied that the rights of States, and especially of 
 the Southern States, were firmly established, as 
 firmly as it was in their minds to establish them. 
 These were fixed up under the administrations of 
 Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Pierce and Buchanan, 
 until there was not a single right claimed by the 
 States but was free from all possible Federal in- 
 terence, with the exception, perhaps, of slavery, 
 and of this, the democratic party was the greatest 
 agitator, owing to its uncontrolable desire for the 
 extension of slavery and the absorption of terri- 
 tory. 
 
 Time and again was the question of slavery 
 settled to the satisfaction of the South, and as 
 many times, by it, was the compact broken. Mr. 
 Jefferson was opposed to slavery and desired its 
 abolition. As early as 1779, in a code of laws re- 
 
12 
 
 ported by him to the legislature of Virginia, he 
 provided for the abolition of slavery. The provis- 
 ion was stricken out, the State desired it otherwise. 
 Again in Congress in 1784 he reported a bill for 
 the government of all the national territory lying 
 beyond the limits of the original thirteen States, 
 and for the exclusion of slavery therefrom 
 
 Congress refused to adopt the anti-slavery clause 
 of this bill. The States desired the extension of 
 slavery. And so it was extended, until it became 
 an element of power in the land, before which 
 government itself must succumb. 
 
 There were expedients resorted to to quiet the 
 fears of the contending elements and to secure to 
 the States this right. 
 
 The "Missouri Compromise" was to settle the 
 question forever, no further encroachments were 
 to be made upon it, no further extensions of its 
 limits were to be suffered. This, as is well known, 
 was a measure submitted by the friends of slavery 
 and was satisfactory to them, and the great party 
 across the line, helped them to thus definitely fix 
 it for all time to come. The Federal Government 
 in this certainly evinced no desire to interfere 
 further with this State Right. 
 
 The satisfaction, however, proved of momentary 
 duration. Stephen A. Douglas brought forth his 
 
13 
 
 hobby of "Squatter Sovereignty" and over-turned 
 "Missouri Compromise," then followed "Border 
 Ruffianism," " Bleeding Kansas," "John Brown," 
 "Harper's Ferry," and "Civil War." 
 
 The agitation of State Rights was a mere inci- 
 dent, and although it is not yet dead, as Mr. Sey- 
 mour avers, its potency was fairly spent and 
 dissolved in the great struggle for slavery and its 
 extension. 
 
 Mr. Seymour comes now to dilate upon that 
 other possible myth, "Centralization." A term 
 vague enough in its application to the political 
 possibilities of this country, and left even more 
 vague by the author in his article. Perhaps I 
 should leave it so as well. A word, however, 
 seems to be necessary. 
 
 To show that President Garfield entertained 
 aspirations in this mythical direction, the author 
 says: "He expressed his joy that power gravi- 
 tated more and more toward the National Capital." 
 It is not contended that these are the President's 
 words, and the author has not deemed it expedient 
 to give them, but instead cites a paragraph from 
 an address delivered by a member of the Cabinet 
 in 1880, as conclusive proof of the centralizing 
 tendencies of the republican party. The para- 
 graph is as follows : 
 
H 
 
 "It must not be forgotten that this Government 
 is no longer the simple machinery it was in the 
 early days of the Republic. The bucolic age of 
 America is over. ***** They are the 
 interests of nearly fifty millions of people spread 
 over an immense surface, with occupations of end- 
 less variety and great magnitude, producing inter- 
 ests so pushing, powerful, and so constantly 
 appealing to the Government, rightfully or wrong- 
 fully, that the requirements of statesmanship de- 
 manded in this age are far different from those 
 which sufficed a century <ago." 
 
 It must be admitted that a centralization of 
 power, such at least as defines the nature of mon- 
 archical governments, endangers more or less the 
 liberties of the people, and, of course, is inconsist- 
 ent with the principles of republicanism. 
 
 To guard against this admitted danger, all 
 possible precautions were taken by the patriots of 
 the revolution, and in the formation of the Consti- 
 tution no loop-hole was left, whereat any terrorizing 
 monster could creep in to destroy the fabric. 
 Nothing more horrible than a bugbear has ever yet 
 managed to effect an entrance, which, in its weak, 
 harmless condition, has sufficed only to bestir the 
 people to renewed watchfulness. • 
 
 Such a thing as a dangerous centralization of 
 power in this Republic or any movement approach- 
 
i5 
 
 ing it must, in the very nature of things, be impos- 
 sible in this country, and if Mr. Seymour has no 
 argument or evidence tending to show this alarm- 
 ing prospect, other than the paragraph above 
 quoted, he may quiet his fears and allay his dis- 
 trust, for it would be little short of absurdity to 
 attempt to construe a holding of this doctrine from 
 these words, by the author of them, or by the 
 republican party. 
 
 The Government of this Republic in the early 
 days was indeed^ simple machinery. Beyond the 
 circumscribed limits of the original thirteen Colo- 
 nies, all was a vast wilderness, but which was the 
 hope and promise of the infant Republic. 
 
 From the period of Independence through the 
 interval of Confederation to the days of Constitu- 
 tion and first Presidents, we may trace the trans- 
 piration of the "bucolic age of America." It 
 needed the fostering care of tender, watchful 
 hands. The development of internal resources 
 would. come in time, but now, patriotism was the 
 essential influence in imparting life and stability, 
 until the experiment should establish the feasibility 
 of Republican Constitutionalism. v 
 
 To these patriots the term "centralization'' was 
 no vague term ; they knew and realized its import, 
 had tasted its fruits, hence their jealous resentment 
 
i6 
 
 . of all encroachments in that direction. The per- 
 fecting of the fabric of Constitutional Government 
 was peculiarly the work of these patriots ; the 
 prime interests of the people centered there. This 
 once accomplished, however, the Republic came 
 naturally out of its swaddling clothes, and Govern- 
 ment itself found something to do in protec,tinp- 
 and advancing the new and growing interests of 
 the people. The mission of the nurses had ended. 
 The "bucolic age" was over; mighty industries 
 demanded attention ; development of vast natural 
 resources needed encouragement ; commerce and 
 new and complicated international relationships, 
 demanded a different stamp and type of statesman-^ 
 ship than that which had nursed into life the new 
 Republic. If there is centralization in this, it can- 
 not, in the nature of things, be avoided. 
 
 To contrast these sentiments with the patriotic 
 utterances of Washington, as Mr. Seymour is pleased 
 to do, for the purpose of illustrating the proposi- 
 tion that the republican party is gravitating in 
 principle toward a dangerous centralization of 
 power, is to fail utterly in the attempt. 
 
 Washington, perhaps, more than any other man, 
 in the days of revolution and government making, 
 had reason to declare against this dangerous power 
 and all its attendant encroachments. 
 
i7 
 
 No man in public or political life was ever more 
 unjustly charged, and no man ever descended to 
 lower and baser methods to injure an opponent 
 than did Jefferson to break down and smirch the 
 character of President Washington. This while 
 he was Secretary of State, and assimilating the 
 character of a friend. I refer thus frequently to 
 Jefferson with some satisfaction, inasmuch as Mr. 
 Seymour's political party with much pride and 
 some justice refers to him as a model of democratic 
 virtue, integrity and reform. I have no disposition 
 to be unjust to the memory of this great and bril- 
 liant statesman, and I refer to him only as I deem it 
 necessary to illustrate the motive of his eminent 
 political follower. 
 
 Whatever may have been the motive of Mr. 
 Seymour in referring to the public expressions of 
 Washington in respect to his patriotism, the force 
 of his quotation is lost entirely, when the motive 
 of Washington in giving publicity to these expres- 
 sions is known and understood. 
 
 While yet leading the continental armies through 
 the storms of battle, through alternating defeats 
 and victories, before government was established, 
 and when no one but a malignant enemy or jealous 
 rival could assume the hardihood to impugn his 
 motives, a charge, as base as groundless, was se- 
 
cretly promulgated to cripple his influence and 
 destroy his deserved popularity. A charge that he 
 was incompetent, coupled with dictatorial aspira- 
 tions. The fact is, it was a plot to supplant him. 
 Imagine the burning indignation of Virginia's 
 statesman and patriot, Patrick Henrey, on receiving 
 the following anonymous letter disclosing the plot : 
 
 Yorktown, Jan. 12, 1778. 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 "The common danger of our country first 
 brought you and me together. I recollect with 
 pleasure the influence of your conversation and 
 eloquence upon the opinions of this country in the 
 beginning of the present controversy. You first 
 taught us to shake off our idolatrous attachment to 
 royalty, and to oppose its encroachments upon our 
 liberties with our very lives. By these means you 
 saved us from ruin. The independence of America 
 is the off-spring of that liberal spirit of thinking 
 and acting which followed the destruction of the 
 spectres of kings, and the mighty power of Great 
 Britain But, sir, we have only passed the Red 
 Sea. A dreary wilderness is still before us, and 
 unless a Moses or a Joshua are raised up in our 
 behalf we must perish before we reach the prom- 
 ised land. We have nothing to fear from our 
 .enemies on the way. General Howe, it is true, 
 has taken Philadelphia, but he has only changed 
 his prison. His dominions are bounded on all 
 sides by his out-sentries. America can only be 
 
J 9 
 
 undone by herself. She looks up to her councils 
 and arms for protection, but alas ! what are they? 
 Her representation in Congress dwindled to only 
 twenty-one members — her Adams, her Wilson, her 
 Henry are no more among them. Her councils 
 weak, and partial remedies applied constantly for 
 universal diseases. Her army, what is it? A 
 major-general, belonging to it, called it a few days 
 ago, in my hearing, a mob. Discipline unknown 
 or wholly neglected. The quartermaster and com- 
 missary's departments, filled with idleness, ignor- 
 ance and peculation; our hospitals crowded with 
 six thousand sick, but half provided with neces- 
 saries or accomodations, and more dying in them 
 in one month than perished in the field during the 
 whole of the last campaign. The money depre- 
 ciating, without any effectual measures being taken 
 to raise it ; the country distracted with the Don 
 Quixote attempts to regulate the price of provisions ; 
 an artificial famine created by it, and a real one 
 dreaded from it. The spirit of the people failing 
 through a more intimate acquaintance with the 
 causes of our misfortune, many submitting daily to 
 General Howe, and more wishing to do it, only to 
 avoid the calamities which threaten our country. 
 But is our case desperate? by no means. We 
 have wisdom, virtue and strength eno' to save us, 
 if the)' could be called into action. The northern 
 army has shown us what Americans are capable of 
 doing witha general at their head. The spirit of 
 the southern army is no way inferior to the spirit 
 
20 
 
 of the northern. A Gates, a Lee, or a Conway, 
 would in a few weeks render them an irresistible 
 body of men. The last of the above officers has 
 accepted of the new office of inspector-general of 
 our army, in order to reform abuses ; but the re- 
 medy is only a palliative one. In one of his letters 
 to a friend he says, "a great and good God hath 
 decreed America to be free — or the ****** 
 and weak counsellors would have ruined her long 
 ago." You may rest assured of each of the facts 
 related in this letter. The author of it is one of 
 your Philadelphia friends. A hint of his name, if 
 found out by the handwriting, must not be men- 
 tioned to your most intimate friend. Even the 
 letter must be thrown in the fire. But some of 
 its contents ought to be made public in order to 
 awaken, enlighten and alarm our country. I rely 
 upon your prudence, and am, dear sir, with my 
 usual attachment to you and to our beloved inde- 
 pendence, yours sincerely." 
 
 His Excellency, P. HENRY. 
 
 Patrick Henry was a strong, uncompromising 
 friend of Washington, and he knew the charge to 
 be, as unfounded as the plot was base, and he hes- 
 itated not a moment in appraising his friend of the 
 scheme on foot to destroy him. 
 
 Washington returned the following replies ; 
 
 Valley Forge, March 27, 1778. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 About eight days past I was honoured with your 
 
21 
 
 favour of the 20th ultimo. Your friendship, sir, 
 in transmitting^ me the anonymous letter you had 
 received, lays me under the most grateful obliga- 
 tions ; and, if anything could give a still further 
 claim to my acknowledgements, it is the very polite 
 and delicate terms in which you have been pleased 
 to make the communication. 
 
 I have ever been happy in supposing that I held 
 a place in your esteem, and the proof of it you 
 have afforded on this occusion makes me peculiar- 
 ly so The favourable light in which you hold me 
 is truly flattering, but I should feel much regret if 
 I thought the happiness of America so intimately 
 connected with my personal welfare, as you so 
 obligingly seem to consider it. All I can say is, that 
 she has ever had, and I trust she ever will have my 
 honest exertions to promote her interest. I cannot 
 hope that my services have been the best, but my 
 heart tells me they have been the best that I could 
 render. 
 
 That I have erred in using the means in my 
 power for accomplishing the objects of the arduous, 
 exalted station with which I am honoured, I cannot 
 doubt ; nor do I wish my conduct to be exempted 
 from the reprehension it may deserve. Error is 
 the portion of humanity, and to censure it, whether 
 committed by this or that public character, is the 
 prerogative of freemen. * * * * This is not 
 the only secret, insidious attempt that has been 
 made to wound my reputation. There have been 
 others equally base, cruel and ungenerous ; because 
 
22 
 
 conducted with as little frankness, and proceeding 
 from views, perhaps, as personally interested." 
 I am, dear sir, &c, 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON. 
 To his Excellency, Patrick Henry, Esq., 
 Governor of Virginia. 
 
 Camp, March 28, 1778. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 "Just as I was about to close my letter of yes- 
 terday, your favour of the fifth inst. came to hand. 
 I can only thank you again in the language of the 
 most undissembled gratitude for your friendship, 
 and assure you, the indulgent disposition which 
 Virginia in particular, and the States in general, 
 entertain towards me gives me the most sensible 
 pleasure. The approbation of my country is what 
 I wish ; and as far as my abilities and opportuni- 
 ty will permit, I hope I shall endeavour to deserve 
 it. It is the highest reward to a feeling mind ; and 
 happy are they who so conduct themselves as to 
 merit it. 
 
 The anonymous letter with which you were 
 pleased to favour me, was written by * * * * 
 
 so far as I can judge from the similitude of hands. 
 
 * * * * 
 
 My caution to avoid everything that could injure 
 the service prevented me from communicating, ex- 
 cept to a very few of my friends, the intrigues of a 
 faction which I knew was formed against me, since 
 it might serve to publish our internal dissentions : 
 
23 
 
 but their own restless zeal to advance their views 
 has too clearly betrayed them, and made conceal- 
 ment on my part fruitless. I cannot precisely 
 mark the extent of their views ; but it appears, in 
 general, that General Gates was to be exalted on 
 the ruin of my reputation and influence. This I am 
 authorized to say from undeniable facts in my own 
 possession, from publications, the evident scope of 
 which could not be mistaken, and from private de- 
 tractions industriously circulated * * * * , 
 it is commonly supposed, bore the second part in 
 the cabal ; and General Conway, I know, was a 
 very active and malignant partisan ; but I have 
 good reason to-believe that their machinations have 
 recoiled most sensibly upon themselves. 
 I am, dear sir, &c, 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON. 
 His Excellency, Patrick Henry, Esq., 
 Governor of Virginia. 
 Mr. Seymour, it will be seen, has not applied 
 the true test. Washington's purity of thought and 
 character, jealous purpose, and withal, his intense 
 patriotism, would not have given him occasion or 
 thought to declaim with such fervency against a 
 doctrine so pernicious, but for the fact that mer- 
 cenaries, in the interest of a rival, had sought to 
 raise up this stigma with the hope of fastening it 
 upon him. But this is not all ; the failure of this 
 cruel scheme not only induced him to be always on 
 
•2 4 
 
 his guard, but a few years later, when a generous 
 public vindicated his character by making him the 
 first chief executive, followed the futile attempt of 
 Mr. Jefferson above referred to. 
 
 He established the National Gazette and pro- 
 cured a Frenchman to conduct it. It is said the 
 leading article savored strongly of Jefferson's style, 
 and they attacked bitterly Washington, Hamilton 
 and their measures. It is a matter of history that 
 Jefferson accused Washington and Hamilton, and 
 the Federals generally, of seeking to destroy the 
 Constitution, calling them monocrats, implying 
 monarchical aspirations, and even more, one man 
 power. This we have seen in his Mazzei letter. 
 
 Washington complained of these attacks, not of 
 the attacks on him personally; these he despised, 
 but that every act of the Government should be 
 thus abused, was as uncalled for as it was ungen- 
 erous. Jefferson, however, justifies his conduct 
 by saying: "His paper has saved our Constitu- 
 tion, which was galloping fast into monarchy, and 
 has been checked by no means so powerfully as 
 that paper." 
 
 I repeat, no man in public life in this country 
 ever had more potent reasons for proclaiming his 
 patriotism and republicanism than General Wash- 
 ington. Not, let it be understood, that he for a 
 
25 
 
 moment feared the managers of government would 
 ever permit it to take on the forms of monarchy to 
 the destruction of the Constitution, but for the 
 reason that he himself had been vilely accused of 
 an attempt to pull down that which he had labored 
 so arduously to build up : the fabric of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Again Mr. Seymour says, he has "no intention 
 to impeach the patriotism of those who hold opin- 
 ions which grew out of the excitements of the 
 civil war, but charges, that in their eagerness to 
 extend the jurisdiction of the General Government 
 they went too far, and exposed the country to un- 
 forseen dangers." 
 
 He then attempts to make this clear by a review 
 of the events of the last few years, and in doing so 
 makes this wholesale charge. 
 
 "The increase in the revenues of the Government 
 has given to Congressmen vast sums of money to 
 vote away for various purposes. Much is used for 
 the payment of the public debt ; much is voted 
 away for the benefit of those who have schemes 
 which they wish to have executed at the public 
 cost. This draws from all parts of the Union 
 shrewd and unscrupulous men who seek a share 
 of the land or money given away." 
 
 This is nothing but a reiteration, and in no bet- 
 ter language, of the charge found in nearly every 
 
26 
 
 issue of the partisan press throughout the country. 
 The charge, if true, establishes a glaring abuse of 
 public confidence and of political freedom. But 
 whether true or not, coming from a responsible 
 source, it is taken up kindly by the enemies of the 
 Republic and magnified into colossal proportions. 
 
 To charge that vast sums of national revenues 
 are voted away for private gain of unscrupulous 
 men, is to charge at once knavery, -perjury and 
 crime in the wholesale on members of congress ; a 
 serious charge to make even for an irresponsible 
 newspaper. 
 
 Mr. Seymour in writing this undoubtedly had in 
 mind the much discussed "River and Harbor 
 Bill," inasmuch as that has been denominated the 
 "greatest steal" on record. The president signal- 
 ized his term of office by his veto of this bill, and 
 those members who voted against it have endeared 
 themselves to the hearts of the people, while those 
 who favored the measure, no matter how honestly, 
 have earned the reproaches of an all wise (?) and 
 impartial public. (?) 
 
 Admitting this charge to be true, we naturally 
 turn to look for the cause ; Mr. Seymour has not 
 mentioned it, but the conclusion is irresistible from 
 the admitted premises. 
 
 The people have elected knaves and rascals, yea, 
 
2 7 
 
 more, villains, to represent them in the national 
 legislature. A man must be all this, who so far 
 disregards his natural predisposition to honesty 
 and virtue, not to say his oath, and clearly defined 
 public duties. 
 
 The author charges much of the corruption to 
 the powerful lobby at Washington. 
 
 Lobbies partake something of the nature of the 
 ubiquitous ; they are omnipresent, and, it may as 
 well be conceded, well nigh omnipotent. They 
 seem to be a necessary evil, ingrown with the in- 
 stitutions of the country. But suppose we grant the 
 power of the lobby and concede, though, with 
 reluctance, the depravity of Congress, we have 
 conceded then Mr. Seymour's idea of the political 
 situation. Now what is the cure for all this? He 
 says : "All thoughtful men in each party see that 
 this must be corrected, that we must go back to 
 the teachings of the Constitution, and that a strict 
 construction of the powers of Congress will leave 
 less opportunity for corruption." 
 
 Let me ask, will a strict construction of the 
 powers of Congress prevent people from electing 
 rogues and rascals to places of power and trust? 
 Will the teachings of the Constitution open a way 
 for dispersing the lobby, and for keeping unscru- 
 
28 
 
 pulous men at home, and shut out congressmen 
 from their contaminating' influence? 
 
 If the teachings of the Constitution have been 
 departed from, or if the powers of Congress have 
 been unduly enlarged, those are errors which must, 
 in the very nature of things, correct themselves, 
 and while I believe the results of the elections of 
 1882 were not due to local causes or controversies, 
 they concern fundamental principles which are 
 firm and lasting, and any man or party of men, 
 who may attempt to traverse these principles, will 
 meet obstacles that cannot be overcome. 
 
 The great balance wheel of republicanism, set 
 turning in '76, continues to revolve with inappre- 
 ciable sway, — thanks to Jefferson and the National- 
 Gazette; "Centralization" cannot interfere with 
 it, not so much even as "State Rights." 
 
 Changes may be made in the woof of the weav- 
 ing, but these shall be effected' in the ordinary 
 way, and in the manner pointed out by the Consti- 
 tution. Centralization, usurpation, or secession 
 will ever be ineffectual. Already in the second 
 century of the Republic the success of the experi- 
 ment is firmly established. 
 
 Political corruption is always lamentable, but 
 this, like many other evils, will finally suggest its 
 own cure ; but, whatever may be said of the pres- 
 
20. 
 
 ent political situation, the fundamental principles 
 of this Government cannot be shaken ; they have 
 been tested by foes within and foes without, and 
 thereby strengthened in their strength. The pres- 
 ent French Republic has lived but little more than 
 a decade, and fears in some quarters have been 
 entertained for its safety, in view of the recent 
 manifesto of Prince Napoleon. But one who has 
 some knowledge of the nature and capabilities of 
 the French Republic — Ex-Minister Washburne — 
 gives it as his deliberate judgment that, "no existing 
 hostile influence can encompass the Republic's 
 downfall. 
 
 Gambetta's death has encouraged adventurers, 
 but their secret scheming and public prating will 
 be wholly fruitless." 
 
 If this be true of the French Republic thus early 
 in its career when it has entered upon its second 
 century, it will be absurd to talk of centralization 
 and monarchy. 
 
 History proves that our Republic has never 
 lacked in patriots. In her time of need her de- 
 fenders have been found in the cool judgments 
 and brawny arms of a liberty loving people. 
 
 From this examination of the question, and of 
 Mr. Seymour's article, I am not inclined to regard 
 the "Political Situation" as at all momentous. 
 
30 
 
 Granting the deplorable condition of party politics, 
 I am sensible of no violation of the principles of 
 Government or of the teachings of the Constitution, 
 such as to warrant this "hue and cry" forthe safety 
 of the country. That principles have been violated 
 and the more sacred teachings of the Constitution 
 ignored, cannot be denied, but I have a stronger 
 faith in the stability of our institutions and in the 
 Republic bequeathed us by the fathers of the Rev- 
 olution than to suppose for a moment that any 
 political party can overthrow them at its will, and 
 my faith in these is doubly strengthened since the 
 attempt of 1861. Whatever may be the portent 
 of the political signs which called forth this article 
 from Mr. Seymour, I would not regard the situa- 
 tion with his mournful misgivings, but rather with 
 the hope of Mr. Boutwell, admitting and pointing 
 out the errors of parties, that they may be correct- 
 ed with the least possible disturbance. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 785 803 4,