Calhoun as a Lawyer and Statesman. living in a monarchy or a republic.' The sneer would never have applied to the cor responding class at the South." Can the same be said now? As a result of my study of Mr. Calhoun's life and of my investigation of the views which he entertained, I have been somewhat surprised at a query which has been raised in my own mind with reference to him and which I have not been able satisfactorily to solve. Was Mr. Calhoun democratic in his ideas of government? I know that in the main he affiliated with the Democratic-Re publican party of his day. I know that he was democratic in his intercourse with his fellows, that he was uniformly polite and re spectful to those whom he met, that he accorded to every one, from the page in the Senate to its most dignified member, every courtesy, that he dressed plainly and was unassuming in his manner, that he was a republican in his simplicity of style, that he was the champion of a limited national government, and that he was unalterably opposed to a strong, consolidated, central government and resented any infringement upon the rights of the States; — but was he a democrat after the order of Jackson? was he like Lincoln, one of the people? did he have that sympathy with them and that con fidence in them which characterized the two men whom I have just mentioned? did he believe like them that the people — the plain common people of the country — should rule? did he believe that the great masses of the people, should control the affairs of the government — that their voice, and their voice alone, should be the supreme authority in the affairs of the nation? Or, on the contrary, did he think that the man agement of affairs should be in the hands of the representative few,— not the party manip ulators, for I know he had but little sym pathy or respect for them — but the superior classes and the more intelligent and higher
377
order of men among the people? If he were living now, would he be in favor of a primary or opposed to it? Let us see what some of the writers say upon these matters. Says Mr. Jenkins, one of his warmest ad mirers: " He was no friend to progressive democracy, nor did he think that liberty and licentiousness were synonymous terms. ' People do not understand liberty or major ities,' he remarked. 'The will of a majority is the will of a rabble. Progressive democ racy is incompatible with liberty. Those who study after this fashion are yet in the horn-book, the a, b, c, of governments. De mocracy is levelling — this is inconsistent with true liberty. Anarchy is more to be dreaded than despotic power. It is the worst tyranny. The best government is that which draws least from the people, and is scarcely felt, except to execute justice, and to pro tect the people from animal violation of law.' "I will now quote fromMr.JosiahQuincy. It may be, however, that he drew a wrong inference from Mr. Calhoun's remarks. Mr. Quincy is giving an account of an interview which he had with Mr. Calhoun, while the latter was vice-president: "The concluding words of this aggressive Democrat made an ineffaceable impression upon my mind. They were pronounced in a subdued tone of esoteric confidence, such as an ancient augur might have used to a neophyte in his pro fession. Substantially they were these : ' Now, from what I have said to you, I think you will see that the interests of the gentle men of the North and those of the South are identieal! I can quote no utterance more characteristic of the political Washington of twenty-six than this. The inference was that the ' glittering generalizations ' of the Declaration were never meant to be taken seriously. Gentlemen were the natural rulers of America, after all."
