THE KNICKERBOCKER.

VOL. VI.

AUGUST, 1835.

No. 2.

PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY.

Who will presume to write the history of Party? Who will attempt to retain or record the impressions he may find upon the strand of the great ocean of popular feeling,-impressions which the next surge will displace or vary? Whoever he may be, he will find his task more vain and endless than that of Sysiphus. Party, like the figures in a kaleidiscope, is ever in motion, ever changing, yet never twice alike. In principles, purposes, and measures, in feelings, favorites, and masters, it is always fickle. He who watches its motions, scarce notes a change, before he is confused by another, until the baffled vision abandons the effort. The ancients fancied they saw in the Northern lights the conflicts of armies. Party, like those lights, is ever varying its shape, ever flashing with new colors, and maintains, amid all its confusion, eternal motion and eternal war.

It would seem that animate creation cannot (so imperfect is this state of existence) move without hostility. The whole living universe is jarring. It is not man alone that wars with his fellow: through every grade of existence, the same law prevails; and while the depths of the ocean witness the wars of the leviathan, the water-drop, when its wonders are disclosed by science, discovers the same scene of contention, and exhibits its animated atoms waging the same unceasing and destructive strife.

Many, who have only contemplated party in this light,--who have viewed it merely as a scene of contention and change,-have turned from it with honest but misapplied disgust. Though its details exhibit much that is sordid and revolting, the study of its general laws will be found both profitable and elevating. Ignorance may despise the clod of the valley; but a more expanded contemplation informs us, that of such are composed the planets that move in harmony and glory around us. The particular details of the Whig party of the revolution would no doubt comprise much to excite disgust; but the history of its acts and triumphs is read with delight and exultation.

Party, though, like the tides, unquiet, has, like the tides, its laws. Let those laws be studied, in an expanded and liberal spirit

, and it will be found that often while we are bewailing the minor vices or disasters of party, its grand career and tendency have been, in this country, regulated by a correct and beneficent intelligence.

The parties of the United States should not be judged by those of other ages and countries. Many forget this,-and turning from their classic studies, filled with learned errors, imagine that party here must be what it was in Greece and Rome. Because Aristides, Camillus.

Parties in this Country.

86

our own.

and Hannibal were exiled, “republics are ungrateful;' because the fair fields of Greece were reddened with civil war, and the streets of Rome bathed in fraternal blood, they infer that like divisions must here occur, and be attended with a like catastrophe.

It cannot be supposed by the most ignorant, that there is a resemblance in the character and position of the countries mentioned, and

Greece was divided into many states, differing in their habits and forms of government,-clashing in their interests, -and from the first, involved in mutual warfare. Republican Greece never was a unit, and therefore never could have disunited. As for Rome, it cannot be regarded as a government of the people. The populace were barbarous, ferocious, and oppressed, and the natural consequence was constant insurrection. Nor must it be forgotten, that the great mass of the people of both countries were barbarous; and that they cherished a religion, the influence of which was adverse to the moral and political elevatjon of the populace. It would be an outrage on reason to pretend, that a barbarous and pagan people are as capable of self government, as a nation where education is as generally diffused as the light of heaven, and where the mild but elevated influence of Christianity humanizes and ennobles the character of the people.

It has frequently been debated, whether parties are, in their influence on a free people, wholesome or otherwise. On this point there have, of course, been various opinions. It is alleged on the one hand, that party excites the vigilance of the public, ---that it watches and exposes the abuses of those in power,—that it makes constant and spirit-stirring appeals to the patriotism of the people, and saves them from the lethargy which precedes and perpetuates despotism. On the other hand, it is argued, that parties, by keeping the mass in a state of excitement, endanger the public tranquility: that they divide the people into clans, each guided by partisan prejudices; that they make politics a profession, disfranchise the minority, and raise demagogues to supreme power; that they give into the hands of a part, instead of the whole of the people, the control of the government; and by their prejudices and violence, menace the existence of the republic.

Neither of these opinions is wholly correct. The tendeney of party is varied according to the character of the population in which it prevails. If they are ignorant, it will be prejudiced; if they are degenerate, it will be corrupt; if they are oppressed, it will be violent; but if, on the contrary, they are intelligent, pure

, and patriotic, it will assume a like character, and instead of awakening the worst, will stir up the noblest feelings and traits of the people.

It is useless, however, to enlarge upon the advantages or evils of party. In a republic, where the people are required to decide public questions, there must be a variance of opinion, and that variance necessarily divides the people, and constitutes parties. Parties are inevitable in a free country, and it is vain and idle to discourse upon the evils which attend them.

The object of the patriot should be, not to lament, but to lessen the defects of party. The means of effecting this are, however, not so easy

a

to determine. Of course, those who can influence the people by their counsel or example, should seek to moderate the violence, correct the abuses, enlighten the prejudices, and elevate the aims of party. But these abstractions, at last, mean nothing. The world should be what it is not ; and in asking that perfection from party which we dare not expect from the people, we manifest a lamentable ignorance of its nature and constituents.

It may perhaps be assumed, that parties are safest when based upon principles,—upon abstract constitutional doctrines. Such questions, being generally disconnected with the passions and interests of individuals, render the conflicts of party more pure and patriotic. Party may, on questions of principle, be violent, but seldom is sordid. Its excitement is lofty, and its aim disinterested. It cherishes a wild enthusiasm in the cause of truth, and encourages a fervent and holy devotion to freedom and justice.

When mere measures of policy are made the basis of party distinctions, the question approaches nearer the interests of men, and parties take a more selfish part in it. The feelings of the people are excited by appeals to their interests, desire is blinded, patriotism forgotten, and the contest is often marked by exhibitions which can only be witnessed with dread, and remembered with shame. Such questions, however, seldom involve the ruin of a country. If the measure proposed be of dubious advantage, it is seldom fully carried: if obviously presumptive of the interests of a large majority, the country is benefitted by its success. The welfare of the mass of the people is the welfare of the country; and even the selfishness of the people unites with other causes in advancing the prosperity of the nation.

In this country, almost every great question, whether of doctrine or policy, is resolved into a support of men. So long as men are the mere representatives of certain principles or measures, the identification is rather desirable than otherwise. But when every other consideration is merged in a partiality for men, parties assume a new and ominous aspect. It cannot be denied, that when a republican favorite has complete control of the people, he is in effect an absolute monarch. But it must be remembered, that it is popular confidence in the virtues of an individual that gives him momentary power; and when that confidence, (seldom in an enlightened country misplaced,) is forfeited or withdrawn, the empty pageant fades away, and the demagogue is again a private and powerless citizen. Still it must be admitted, that a proneness to substitute an attachment to men for a support of principles or measures, is dangerous and degrading, and calculated, if not kept in check by the intelligence of the people, to end in results disastrous to republicanism.

The government and the people have a great and reciprocal influence upon each other. It should be the aim of the people so to frame and administer the government as to check the vices, and avert the dangers of party. They should endeavor to avoid the perilous and preponderating power of over-grown factions, by splitting them into minor sections on various questions, and under various forms. But more especially should they endeavor to make and keep parties disin

terested and moderate. This, we incline to believe, may be more easily effected than most persons suppose.

When our government withholds any encouragement of the unholy lust of office which unhappily prevails in this country; when they eschew high salaries, and unnecessarily frequent elections; when public officers are selected, like private agents, for their fitness alone, and retained so long as they remain fit and faithful, when this becomes the policy of our government, the stimulus that now maddens our people will be withdrawn. The sordid lust for gold which besets all parties will disappear. Our people will own no guide but reason, and cherish no excitement that is not caught from the altar of patriotism : and our parties, purified from sordid and ignoble motives, will contend with a moderate but noble emulation for the welfare and advancement of our common country.

There is in all countries a race of nervous patriots, who imagine dangers that are never felt, and who never look into the twilight of the future without trembling at the apparition of a thousand phantoms. Such are they who assert that parties are ever corrupt, ever prejudiced, ever violent, and must eventually enslave the people by whom they are cherished. Men are, in their opinion, incapable of self-government : and the theory of a republic, though sublime in the abstract, is unattainable in practice. This race of croakers and cravens has of late increased. Every disappointed politician imagines that the prostration of his air-castle is the ruin of the republic. The country depends upon his party, as the world was suspended by the hand of Jove; and its defeat must

, as he fancies, be attended by the realization of all the hobgoblin predictions of electioneering rhetoric.

These fears are not merely weak and unmanly. They are treason to our country, -nay, they are impiety to our God. Can it be believed that he made them to be slaves; that he designed the many to be the prey of the few, and for that purpose mingled in our nature inherent and invincible defects, which unfit us, even with all the advantages of religion and education, for self-control. Such coward fears wrong the wisdom of the sages who framed our government; they dishonor the blood poured out to purchase our freedom ; and cast upon us,--who, with such ancestry, are supposed capable of degenerating into bondsmen,—the darkest and foulest reproach.

But such fears are as groundless as they are degrading. Our republic may be not only permanent but perpetual. We may, it is true, have occasional usurpations, (who or what is perfect?) but year by year the people gain more than they lose. We may have tumults, but not so frequent nor so violent as in those countries where public order is maintained by the bayonets of thousand of mercenaries; and although the many may, and at times will err, yet it will be found that the few err still more frequently and dangerously, and are less successful in maintaining the tranquility of the government, and effecting the happiness of the people.

It may be well to exhibit, more in detail, the fallacy of these apprehensions. Our republic has existed for nearly sixty years. During that time, it has fully experienced the influence of parties, in every mood

which they can assume, and under every difficulty in which they may be tried. Of the violence of our parties, every reader of our history is informed. During the revolution, they bathed our fields in blood, and laid our towns in ashes. Before the adoption of the Constitution, they betrayed all the vehemence and hostility of foreign and strange foes. After the formation of the Government, during the wars of the original Federal and Republican parties, the land rung for years with the bitterest denunciation and the fiercest threats; and dissolution, anarchy, and despotism, were then, as now, the burthen of the raven song of the prophets of evil. Since that time, and within the recollection of the reader, our ears have been constantly deafened with the danger of parties, and our hearts chilled by the awful precipice which, according to the predictions of the disappointed, has been ever yawning at our feet.

It would be well to review the events of those times, and inquire what have been the dire consequences of the conflicts referred to. Have they injured the republic ? Have they ever changed the government, without improving it? Have they diminished our rights, or disturbed our tranquility ? To all this, the candid reply must be an exulting negative. Both parties have, in all emergencies, exhibited the warmest patriotism, and the truest devotion to liberty. They have in no instance, in reality, endangered the Union, as the result of every 'crisis' has demonstrated. Indeed, we may go farther, and challenge contradiction, when we assert, that the decisions of the majority in this country, so far as they have controlled the policy of the government, have never been erroneous. This is a bold assertion, but a review of the past will sustain it.

•But,' exclaims the croaker, ' if parties have not injured the country, or destroyed the government, they have, at least, attempted to do it, as in the case of the Whiskey Insurrection, in the attempt to elect Burr, in the Missouri excitement, in the Hartford Convention, and in Nullification. To all this, we might, and if space allowed, we would, oppose a direct denial, and challenge the issue. It is not, however, necessary. We will only ask those who infer danger from the slight breezes which have rippled the flow of our government, in the lapse of sixty years, to show us, under the canopy of heaven, a single government, weak or strong, bond or free, that has not, in the same period, experienced greater commotion. They cannot do it. We may, without hazard, deduce from their own argument, as applied to the facts, that our government is the strongest and most permanent on earth. It is vain to expect, except from a colony of oysters, eternal and lethargic tranquility. Men cannot be forced to sleep on, with orthodox propriety, through centuries, because political economists desire it. All people must expect the political atmosphere to be agitated at times by the wings of the tempest. Those who tremble because our country has passed through such encounters, exhibit as much wisdom as he who sees the flash of lightning without fear, and afterward shrinks at the sound when the danger is over. It would be extreme folly to infer that an