ART. IX.-Origin and Character of the old Parties. 1. History of the Hartford Convention, with a Review of the Policy of the United States Government, which led to the War of 1812. By THEODORE DWIGHT, Secretary of the Convention. New York. 2. Familiar Letters on Public Characters and Public Events, from the Peace of 1783, to the Peace of 1815. Boston. 1834.

1833.

THE first of these works is a history of the Hartford Convention, by the Secretary of that body; the second is anonymous, but is freely attributed in the public prints to a gentleman, who took a somewhat conspicuous part in the old political controversies. They both belong, therefore, to the valuable and interesting class of books containing historical illustrations of political events, by individuals who were in one way or another to a greater or less extent personally connected with them. Writers of this description have been hitherto rare in our country. Our political and military characters have been generally either too busy or too little given to the use of the pen, to furnish the public with materials for their own history or that of their times. In some other countries these works compose, under the name of Memoirs, a large, attractive, and we may add, very important department of literature. In France, particularly, the supply of them has been exceedingly abundant; of late years, indeed, they have multiplied in that country to an extent and volume, sufficient, notwithstanding the unparalleled, we had almost said, agonizing interest of the period they describe, to weary the patience of the most indefatigable readers. The memoirs already published on the French Revolution, would compose of themselves a very handsome library, and there is room to suppose that the source is yet by no means exhausted. To the mass of these productions, writers of both sexes have contributed in nearly equal proportions, and if we attach to those of the men who have themselves occupied the highest political stations, such as Napoleon himself and his immediate coadjutors, more importance as political documents, we may freely admit that such works

as those of Madame Roland, Madame de Staël, Madame de Genlis and the Duchess of Abrantes are among the most agreea ble, and under some points of view most instructive, of the collection.

The peculiar advantages and disadvantages of this kind of writing are sufficiently apparent. From the deep and lively interest which is felt by every one in matters immediately connected with his own personal concerns, they will probably be written with spirit and vivacity, and will thus avoid the greatest of all literary faults,that of dullness. 'All sorts of writing,' says Voltaire, are good, except the tiresome.' Tous les genres sont bons hors le genre ennuyeux. Again, the writer of memoirs will possess almost of necessity a minute and accurate acquaintance with the details of at least some portion of his subject, and even should his general knowledge be limited and his views incorrect, he will yet throw light upon some particular passage or event, the precise history of which might otherwise remain forever unknown. On the other hand, he is prone to extend his communications to an unreasonable length,

to publish twelve or fifteen volumes where two or three would answer every useful purpose, and, what is a more serious evil, though a great book was regarded by the ancients as no trifling one, he naturally carries into his description of the events in which he took a part, the feelings and opinions, right or wrong, under the influence of which he acted, judges of measures and characters in the spirit of a partisan, and furnishes, in short, a more or less partial view of his subject.

The works before us exemplify, as would naturally be expected, the merits and the defects of the class of writings to which they belong. They are both entertaining, and will be read with pleasure by all who feel any interest in the history of the country. If that of Mr. Dwight be less amusing, it has more the air of an official document, and will supply more authentic materials to the future historian. The Familiar Letters are in this respect particularly valuable, on account of the minute and often very curious descriptions which they give of the appearance and private habits of the prominent men of the last generation, with many of whom the author seems to have had opportunities of personal acquaintance. With these merits, which will render them both, though in somewhat different ways, contributions of no inconsiderable value to our national VOL. XXXIX.-NO. 84.

27

literature, they show throughout, as well in the uniformly favorable judgment passed upon the men and measures of one of the political parties that formerly divided the country, as in the harsh censure as uniformly bestowed upon those of the other, that their authors, though writing no doubt with the best intentions, are still to a considerable extent under the influence of the party spirit of the times which they describe.

It is not our purpose, however, to enter into a minute criticism of these works. They do not need our recommendation to give them currency, nor would it perhaps be a profitable labor to undertake to point out in detail such mistakes of fact or opinion, as may have crept into certain passages of them, either from mere inadvertence, or from the cause to which we have just alluded. We propose in the present article to avail ourselves of the occasion afforded by their publication, to present a view of the history of parties in this country, as we understand it, somewhat different from that which they suggest,more favorable to the character of our fathers, and, as we conceive, more conformable to facts and to the acknowledged principles of human action. In recording the view of the old controversies which prevailed at the time in the party to which they belonged, the writers of these works have acted with perfect honesty, and, as we have said, have rendered a service to the literature of the country. But these controversies have long since ceased to exist, and, as we shall show hereafter, can never by any possibility be renewed. The parties which carried them on have disappeared forever from the country. The persons composing the present active generation never took any, or if any, more than a very slight and secondary share in them;-never felt the ardent loves, nor the bitter hatreds, which grew out of them, and harrowed up for the time the very inmost soul of society. It seems to us now a strange and painful thing to see our natural and political fathers,-the fathers of our national existence, and social institutions, all of whom we would willingly regard with equal and unmingled veneration and gratitude, denounced not merely as obnoxious to occasional error, but as wilfully false to their own fame and the best interests of the country. We cannot persuade ourselves that such denunciations, however honest and well meant, can be necessary in reference to the prominent members of either of the former parties. There is ample ground, as we conceive the subject,—for the belief that both were

sincere in their views of the great political principles and measures upon which they differed; and that, while a similar contest prevailed at the same time throughout the whole Christian world, it was no where carried on with equal moderation, superior intelligence, or in general in a manner more creditable in every respect to the persons who took the most active share in it, and to the people at large. This is the view which we wish to offer to the consideration of our readers on the present occasion, and which we shall now proceed to develope, recurring occasionally to the works before us in the way of illustration or reference.

The existence of parties in free governments is a matter of course, if not of absolute necessity. In a system which permits no expression of individual opinion,-where no voice is publicly heard but that of the Sovereign, parties are unknown. Any opposition to the will of the master is either suppressed at once or ends in revolution, and the merits of the question at issue can only be discussed in the form of actual civil war. Where a free expression of opinions is allowed, they will naturally be found to differ more or less upon every question of importance, and the people will form themselves into parties as they happen to approve or disapprove the measures which for the time most forcibly engage the public attention. It may be added, that most governments carry with them, in the nature of their constitution, the elements of permanent political divisions, which though more or less active at different times, are never entirely suppressed, and constantly re-appear, perhaps with some variations of name and form, through the whole course of their history. Something of this kind, as we shall presently have occasion to remark, may be seen in the institutions of the United States.

I. The only party division of any consequence which existed in the United States, as Colonies, and up to the close of the revolutionary war, was that of the supporters and the opponents of the Royal Prerogative, respectively distinguished by the familiar names of Whigs and Tories. The entire prostration of the latter in the war of Independence, and the success of the new government erected by the former upon the ruins of the colonial system, extinguished this division, which has left no traces in the condition or feelings of the people. The most obnoxious and prominent of the Tories retired to England; the rest acquiesced with cheerfulness in the new state

of things. The Whigs remained in undisputed possession of the field, and having now no common enemy to contend with, had opportunity and leisure, as always happens in similar cases, to discover the differences of opinion among themselves. Within three or four years from the conclusion of peace, they were contending with each other throughout the whole country upon new grounds of controversy, with nearly as much zeal as they had before felt in their warfare with the Tories, though it was fortunately displayed in a more pacific shape.

II. This new division,-the second in the order of time of those which have prevailed among us, and one of which the traces are not yet and probably never will be entirely effaced,was that of the supporters and opponents of the present Federal Constitution, respectively known by the appellations of Federalists and Anti-federalists. It belongs to the class of those already alluded to, which have their elements in the very nature of the governments of the communities in which they appear. Although our principal concern in the present article is with the parties that grew up after the adoption of the Constitution, yet as those which preceded had a good deal of influence in determining the character and personal composition of the others, it may be proper to make them the subject of a few preliminary remarks.

The Colonies now composing the United States were as such entirely independent of each other, and had no political bond of union excepting the common allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain. Although their contiguous geographical position, the community of origin, language, laws, manners and religion, and the constant and intimate personal relations existing among the great majority of the individuals composing them, created among them a real and substantial union, which every year of their existence happily tends more and more to consolidate, they were still at that time in form entirely separate. The Colonies in New England, at an early period of their history, established a temporary union among themselves for their mutual defence against the natives, and about the middle of the last century an unsuccessful attempt was made by the Convention that met at Albany to form a more general When the Revolutionary crisis became very imminent, the deputes from all the Colonies met in Congress at Philadelphia, to arrange in concert the operations which that

one.