soothing effect, or whether the social separations are accompanied by political prerogatives conferred on hereditary ranks, which are then regarded as doubly odious monopolies. . . .

As in steamboats, on railroads, in hotels and stage coaches, there exists no distinction or separation into classes, European travellers are brought into contact with all sorts of persons; and many of their habits appear strange and repulsive, such as spitting about, cocking their legs up on the chair-backs, tables, window-sills, &c. In polite society no one takes these unbecoming liberties, and no one would set up the principle, in opposition to Athens and Florence, that a true republican must not sacrifice to the graces. There is a certain refinement, elegance, and pleasing polish of manner, equally remote from coarseness and from the affected airs of a dancing master's saloon; this is found in the best society of America; and will continually have more to appreciate and practise it, without detriment to the graver virtues. Only a few, however, of the more highly cultivated, have a taste for humanity without gloss or meretricious ornament. Jefferson hit the true medium in this, as in many other things. He says: "With respect to what are termed polite manners, I would wish my countrymen to adopt just so much of European politeness, as to be ready to make all those little sacrifices of self, which really render European manners amiable, and relieve society from the disagreeable scenes to which rudeness often subjects it."

It was observed by an American lady, "Our best society is aristocratic in principle and feeling." True, and so it is every where; in all grades of society, every one strives to rise higher, and emulates those who are his superiors in education or position. Only in America this has nothing at all to do with the political system, and does not originate from it. There the highest and lowest grades of English society are wanting. The want of the former class may be esteemed a gain or a loss according to the point from which the subject is viewed; but the absence of the latter is certainly a gain. Because there is no court ton in America it does not follow that there is no good ton; and it is better that personal qualities should be allowed to manifest themselves, than that they should be ground down to a dead level by considerations of social diplomacy, so that all we come in contact with has neither character nor physiognomy of its own. From natural reasons already often mentioned, the lower classes of America, taken altogether, are more cultivated and more rational than in other countries. Even the backwoodsmen read the newspapers, and show considerable information on many subjects. We

may smile to see here a major of militia driving a stage-coach, and a colonel taking measure for a suit of clothes; but we ought to weep when we hear European village squires assert, that the right and ability to think and act for the whole community belong to them alone. . . .

Scarcely any reproach is more frequently uttered against the Americans, than that they are arrogant and irritable, and excessively fond of flattery..

...

My own experience does not by any means confirm these accusations. I have often expressed myself freely, nay severely, concerning matters of every description, and have combated with earnestness the opinions of others, without ever being subjected to the slightest censure on that score. The worthy men who listened and replied to me, knew that my conduct was not the result of vanity or presumption, but that I was actuated by the wish to view matters on every side, and to obtain as much information as I could. Thus, when I spoke against slavery with the slaveholders, against immediate emancipation with the abolitionists,— in favor of democratic opinions with the whigs, and of whig principles with the democrats, I drew forth such varied and instructive communications, as I should never have obtained, had I, like a mandarin on a mantelpiece, kept nodding a perpetual assent. The Americans would have far more reason to find fault with my behavior, than I (like the writers above quoted) to complain of them. It stands to reason also, that where unconditional freedom of speech and of the press exists, there cannot be such uneasiness, such aptness to take offence, and such a tyrannical demeanor, as in countries where civil and military officers, literati, &c. are wholly unaccustomed to blame, and are vulnerable at all points.

I must say too, that I have not found the Americans excessively curious, and disposed to annoy every stranger with questions. They seemed to me in this respect rather indifferent. It is certain that I asked a hundred times as many questions as have been put to me. The Americans, it is true, are often fond of praising themselves, and chiefly because there is much in their country worthy of praise; they also seek to ward off censure, as every patriot is wont to do with strangers, without seriously and absolutely denying the existence of faults. The people are certainly often flattered in the United States, as sovereigns are in Europe; since it every where requires courage to speak and hear the truth. But this praise is counterbalanced by such severe, eloquent, and bitter denunciation, as show that no stranger can judge more harshly of the

Americans than they do themselves; indeed, sometimes their moral sensibility and noble indignation- or else mere ill humor- urges them to melancholy and almost desponding complaints.

As a procession was once passing through the midst of a crowd, a gentleman called out, "Make way; we are the representatives of the people!" "Make way yourself," was the reply. "We are the people themselves!" This anecdote throws a flood of light on regions where many cannot see their way. Hence a French observer remarks: "I prefer the involuntary rudeness of plebeians to the insolent politeness of courtiers." The travelling journalists and their readers usually persevere in observing things from the European point of view of persons of the higher ranks, instead of also looking at them with the eyes of the majority who are in an inferior condition. Hence, for instance, so many complaints of the presumption and the expensiveness of servants and domestics in America. The high wages, however, are very welcome to them, and are the natural consequence of the relation which the demand bears to the supply. Besides, every one prefers the condition of an independent freeholder, a citizen of the United States, to that of a domestic servant; a position which he only consents to assume on very advantageous terms, in order that he may the sooner escape from it. Hence too arises the beneficial result, that masters are often obliged to help themselves, and thus never fall into the foolish habit, as they do in Spain, of maintaining a pack of idlers in the quality of servants.

This bears a very close relation to general and most important facts and truths. In a country where wages are high, land cheap, and taxes low, and where there is no burdensome subjection to military service, the mass of the people must be well off. This prosperity produces contentment, which is of more value than the disposition to criticise and find fault. To this widely diffused prosperity the principles of an equal distribution of all heritable property essentially contribute. If they had retained or introduced unequal rights of inheritance, privileges of primogeniture, Fideicommissa, and the like, wealth would soon have been accumulated in the hands of a few, and a class of luxurious idlers established.

In America every one is made to know, that it is labor in some specific pursuit that alone gives life its value and importance. A Neapolitan admirer of the sweets of indolence may regard this sentiment as absurd; and another may express his fear that the mental powers will be stifled by a restless passion for gain. But the activity of the hands and the

complete accomplishment of the head stand in close connection; and the American constitution carries education beyond school-days, and makes higher claims on every individual than are made elsewhere. But, it has been a thousand times repeated, in this manner the Americans fall into downright selfishness; the acquisition of money is the sum and substance of their existence, and is esteemed beyond every thing else. One would imagine these fault-finders had a mortal antipathy to gold and silver! The American looks on money essentially as the means of further activity; he does not lock it up in coffers, or accumulate for the mere purpose of leaving it to a few lazy heirs; he is no miser that never makes use of his wealth, nor is he a spendthrift that squanders it away; but his endeavor is, to employ it in the truest advantage. Mistakes in this respect are only the exceptions, and do not form the rule, as with prodigals and misers. The Americans are reasonably disinclined to all useless expenses, which in Europe so often impoverish both individuals and states; yet on behalf of all great and peaceful enterprises, they show themselves rather too venturesome than too niggardly and circumspect.

Putting out of consideration those persons who do nothing at all, the American does not labor more than the European; in fact, the latter must undergo severer exertion, without attaining such satisfactory results. On this account labor and business are more attractive in America than in Europe

Frederick Von Raumer, America, and the American People (New York, 1846), 491-496 passim.

CHAPTER XXIV-JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

158. The Office-Holder's Sword of Damocles (1829-1830)

BY COLONEL THOMAS LORRAINE M'KENNEY (1846)

M'Kenney was placed in charge of the bureau of Indian affairs when it was organized in 1824, and held the position until removed in the manner described in the extract. His knowledge of the Indians was great, his dealings with them satisfactory, and his administration of the bureau honest and able; hence his removal was based entirely on the doctrine of the spoils system. - Bibliography: Lucy M. Salmon, Appointing Power of the President, 54–66, 125–129 (American Historical Association, Papers, I, 344-356, 415-419); Channing and Hart, Guide, § 181.

OME time after General Jackson had been inaugurated, the Secre

SOME

President? I said I had not. Had you not better go over? Why, sir? I asked-I have had no official business to call me there, nor have I any now; why should I go? You know, in these times, replied the secretary, it is well to cultivate those personal relations, which will go far towards securing the good-will of one in power — and he wound up by more than intimating that the President had heard some things in disparagement of me, when I determined, forthwith, to go and see him, and ascertain what they were. On arriving at the door of the President's house, I was answered by the door-keeper, that the President was in, and having gone to report me, returned, saying the President would see me. On arriving at the door, it having been thrown open by the door-keeper, I saw the President very busily engaged writing, and with great earnestness; so much so, indeed, that I stood for some time, before he took his eyes off the paper, fearing to interrupt him, and not wishing to seem intrusive. Presently, he raised his eyes from the paper, and at the same time his spectacles from his nose, and looking at me, said—“Come in, sir, come in." You are engaged, sir? "No more so than I always am, and always expect to be " - drawing a long breath, and giving signs of great uneasiness.

I had just said, I am here, sir, at the instance of the Secretary of War,