How shall we define a Statesman? Shall we take our model from the hereditary rulers of the old world, or from the choice of the people in the new? Is he confined to any age, or peculiar to any form of government? We answer, no-the true Statesman is the product of no particular age or nation; he may grasp the sceptre of the Autocrat, or hold his power at the nod of a pure democracy; he may govern amid the elements of a wild and frenzied revolution, or direct with calm wisdom the affairs of State, when the storm is over. The true Statesman is one, who, with genuine patriotism in his heart, and guided by far-reaching wisdom, endeavors to advance the real honor and the permanent welfare of his country. Such a man, like Washington, may be said to govern for humanity; like Lycurgus, his hand will shape the model of which his country, for succeeding ages, shall be the counterpart. Such is the character of the true Statesman, in every age and nation, and were it not for a few illustrious names scattered along the tract of time, like stars of the first magnitude shining through a hazy sky, such, we had said, is only an ideal conception.

We do not, however, design to write an essay on the elements which constitute the true Statesman-we rather wish to touch briefly on the influence which the age and nation has upon the character of the Statesman, and from thence to draw an answer to the question, "What is the Statesman demanded by our country and our age

A

?"

very cursory glance at the page of history will teach us how much a public man partakes of the characteristics of his age and country. So true is this, that we may say the Statesmen of a nation are an index of its character, and the character of the times. Lycurgus could hardly have legislated for the Athe

VOL. VIII.

1

nians, Solon could not have given laws to Sparta. Mirabeau could have arisen in no other country but in wild, enthusiastic France, nor at any other period than that time of fierce tumult which preceded the sanguinary reign of Robespierre and Marat. Chatham and Burke and Pitt were emphatically English Statesmen, and admirably qualified to act in the century in which they lived-a century of comprehensive plans and vast results. In fine, every nation has its peculiar class of public men; we can discern strong points of difference even between the Statesmen of England and America, although there exist between the two nations so many resemblances. The latter (we speak of them as a class) are animated, bold, and enthusiastic; the former, dispassionate, logical, and learned. American Statesmen, with all their energy, are too often mere theorists the English but seldom so; they are cautious and systematic, and, it cannot be doubted, men of superior acquirements, frequently masters of the whole field of literature and science.

The causes of this difference are obvious; one or two of them we will mention. The principles of English legislation are settled; the prerogatives of each department of government well defined and thoroughly understood. The absence of any written constitution, which at first view might seem unfavorable to permanent legislation, in fact contributes to it in a nation so old as England, by making legislation depend on precedents, which, in the progress of ages, have become exceedingly numerous and authoritative as the power of habit over the human soul. In America, the principles of government are not so well defined. The constitution itself, at once the evidence and the bulwark of our freedom, is variously construed by contending parties; the anomalous bond which unites the confederated States to the central power, gives rise to peculiar difficulties, and until the nation's youth shall have turned into hoary age, it cannot give birth to precedents which shall carry with them the weight of venerated antiquity.

Another, and perhaps a more influential cause, is to be found in the structure of English and American society. In England, in the course of advancing centuries, society has been "pressed down into its classifications." All men take rank in one or another of a few grades, which, although like the prismatic colors they are blended by an imperceptible shading, have yet great and striking distinctions. These gradations, with corresponding employments, pass down from one generation to another, until certain occupations become almost hereditary, and thus, among other classes, there are many who from father to son become public men-politicians by birthright, Statesmen

by education-of whom nascitur et fit might be affirmed with truth. These men, to a good extent, constitute the aristocracy of England-with all its faults the noblest aristocracy the world has ever seen. In America, we have no men born to the honors of the State, and educated from early life to perform official duties; there are no hereditary seats in Congress, there is no class in community from which Statesmen are taken ready fashioned. Whether this be a disadvantage may well be doubted; perhaps this very fact is calculated to make the American Statesman a readier and more efficient man. But into this inquiry we do not enter-we only meant to state the cause of the difference which has been mentioned. It is no disparagement to our public men to say, that they are neither so accomplished nor erudite as the public men of England. Indeed, extensive learning has never been the general characteristic of the Statesmen of America. The favorite orator of Virginia, the pride of our infant republic, owed nothing to early education, and never rose to the standing of a respectable scholar, and only a small number of the founders of our government can be regarded as learned men. They possessed qualities, however, infinitely more important for men who stood in the gap for human rights and human nature, men who were to found an empire and make precedents for coming ages-they had commanding genius, minds all-grasping and undaunted. The merely learned man would have stood amid the sages of the revolution, a pigmy among the sons of Anak.

Their

To the field which now opens for the efforts of the American Statesman, we turn our attention. The condition of our nation is peculiar-its continued existence is opposed to the general belief of mankind, and to all the experience of former times; and although many at home are accustomed to look upon our past history as amply proving the success of the self-government theory, yet the friends of liberty abroad look upon it with a more doubtful eye with an eye of hope, rather than of assuranceof ardent expectation, rather than of positive belief. views may be correct, that they are safe cannot be questioned, nor ought we to esteem as the enemies of true liberty all those who may not believe in the good workings of our system as confidingly as we do ourselves. There are lovers of human happiness and human freedom, in old king-ridden Europe as well as in republican America-not so many, but as true-and we need not refuse to learn wisdom from their opinions, especially when we recollect that for the most philosophical view which has yet been taken of our institutions, we are indebted to an European. We have, it is true, promulgated to the world some great principles-principles which may re-model the

fabric of human society, but an existence of sixty years is not sufficient to demonstrate their truth, nor prove the safety of the example; the nation is not, indeed, the cradled Hercules, for it has already throttled the serpent, but its most perilous labors may still be in the future.

It is this shadowy uncertainty which hangs over the future destiny of America, which devolves upon her Statesmen such weighty responsibilities, and opens such a vast field in which commanding genius may exert itself. The lamp of experience gives but a dim light, the history of the past speaks in tones of deep discouragement, and if our destiny should be as bright as we anticipate, it will be as unexampled as it will be bright. Principles of government but half developed are to be investigated and applied, upon whose truth, established thus early, hangs the fate of a mighty empire for succeeding ages. In nations, as in individuals, early principles have unbounded influence. What a wide and potent influence have the opinions of Jefferson already had, almost unexampled in the history of nations, certainly unparalleled in our own; and without claiming prophetic ken we say, that their almost omnipotent spell will be felt with widening sway as the tide of emigration rolls over the western mountains, and pours its swelling millions on the yet untrodden shores of the Pacific. We speak not in the spirit of a partisan, and therefore do not fear to add, that it is still a problem whether that influence will be a blessing or a curse; that will depend upon the moral and intellectual advance of the mass of the nation, the ol oλo, into whose hands the broad democracy of Jefferson has thrown the power, and who will keep it, for under whatever name parties may hereafter triumph, that principle will still be in the ascendant. No Statesman can again arise whose position will enable him to exert an influence like that of Jefferson, but yet, the measures of the public men now upon the theatre of action, and who may be there for years to come, will be attended with momentous results. Questions of lasting importance have arisen within a few years, which must soon be decided, and the policy adopted will be permanent. Save at the commencement of our government, there never was a time when political sagacity and integrity was more needed; we are afloat upon almost every one of the great questions of the day, and the trouble which some of them have caused, like the premonitions of the earthquake, are but precursive of more fearful throes. This state of things demands men of far-reaching views, men to whom contemporary honor can hold out no lure, and upon whose ears popular clamor will fall unheeded. It demands far other men than are now, in too many instances, within the halls of Congress; men who ought to have tarried at