The Continental Monthly, Vol. 5, Issue 2, February, 1864 | Page 2

votes, influence, and contributions, to
place the party in power and to keep it there.
These misguided Democrats owe to Jefferson the war cries they shout
and the arms they are using against the Government. His works are an
arsenal where these weapons of sedition are arranged ready for use,
bright and in good order, and none of them as yet superseded by
modern improvements. He first made excellent practice with the word
'unconstitutional,' an engine dangerous and terrible to the
Administration against which it is worked; and of easy construction, for
it can be prepared out of anything or nothing. Jefferson found it very
effective in annoying and embarrassing the Government in his
campaigns. But as he foresaw that the time must come when the
Supreme Court of the United States would overpower this attack, he
adapted, with great ingenuity, to party warfare the theory of States'
Rights, which in 1787 had nearly smothered the Constitution in its
cradle. This dangerous contrivance he used vigorously against the alien
and sedition law, without considering that his blows were shaking the
Union itself. Mr. Calhoun looked upon the Kentucky Resolutions
(Jefferson's own work) as the bill of rights of nullification, and wrote
for a copy of them in 1828 to use in preparing his manifesto of the
grievances of South Carolina. It is unnecessary to allude to the triumph
of these doctrines at the South under the name of secession.
As Jefferson soon perceived that a well-disciplined band of needy
expectants was the only sure resort in elections, he hit upon rotation in
office as the cheapest and most stimulating method of paying the
regular soldiers of party for their services (if successful) on these
critical occasions. But as a wise general not only prepares his attack,
but carefully secures a retreat in case his men push too far in the heat of
conflict, Jefferson suggested the plan of an elective judiciary, which he
foresaw might prove of great advantage to those whose zeal should
outrun the law. He even recommended rebellion in popular
governments as a political safety valve; and talked about Shay's War
and the Whiskey Insurrection in the same vein and almost the same
language that was lately used to the rioters of New York by their
friends and fellow voters. And he and his followers shouted then, as

their descendants shout now, 'Liberty is in danger!' 'The last earthly
hope of republican institutions resides in our ranks!' Jefferson is also
entitled to the credit of naturalizing in the United States the phrases of
the French Revolution: virtue of the people; reason of the people;
natural rights of man, etc.--that Babylonish dialect, as John Adams
called it, which in France meant something, but in this country was
mere cant. Jefferson knew that here all were people, and that no set of
men, whether because of riches or of poverty, had the right to arrogate
to themselves this distinction. But he also knew that in Europe this
distinction did exist, and that the emigrants who were coming in such
numbers all belonged to the lower class, there called people. Of course
these flattering phrases would win their ears and their votes for the
people's ticket, against an imaginary aristocracy. Thus might be secured
an army of obedient voters, knowing nothing but their orders, and
thinking of nothing but the pleasing idea that they were the rulers.
These useful inventions are enough to immortalize any man. His theory,
that the rich only should be taxed, as an indirect form of agrarianism,
ought not to be forgotten, for we see it daily carried out; and his darling
doctrine, that no generation can bind its successors, will come to light
again and life whenever a party may think the repudiation of our war
debt likely to be a popular measure. Indeed, there is scarcely a form of
disorganization and of disorder which Jefferson does not extract from
some elementary principle or natural right. We do not mean to accuse
him of doing wrong deliberately. Jefferson was an optimist. All was for
the best--at least, all that he did; for he was naturally predisposed to
object to any measure which did not originate with himself or had not
been submitted to his judgment. His elementary principles were always
at his call. They were based upon reason: how could they be wrong?
His mind grasped quickly all upon the surface that suited his purpose;
deeper he did not care to go. In deciding whether any political doctrine
was consistent or inconsistent with natural reason, he generally judged
of it by his reason--and this varied with his position, his interest, his
feelings. He probably was not aware of the extent of his mutations; his
mind was fixed on the results to be obtained--always the same: the