“And I like Old Ironhead,” said the member, “because he is a man after my own sort. When he once says he is your friend, he is your friend; but once your enemy, then look out for breakers.”
“And, what is more,” interrupted the senator, “his hatred is of that pure Saxon kind which is always coupled with moral horror; and, for that reason, irreconcileable.”
“And, what is better than all,” cried the member, chuckling, “he has a good memory; he never forgets a man who has rendered him a service, nor does he ever cease to remember an injury. The former is sure of being rewarded, the latter will with difficulty escape punishment. Mr. Adams, during his Presidency, was pusillanimous enough to endeavour to reconcile his enemies by all sorts of douceurs; he appointed them to office, invited them to dinner, and distinguished them even before his friends. This conduct naturally alienated the latter; while the former, perceiving his drift, did not think themselves bound to be grateful for his attentions. General Jackson introduced the doctrine of reward and punishment, and has ‘got along’ with it much better than his warmest friends anticipated. He appointed his friends to office, and dismissed his antagonists the moment they had taken an active part in politics. That principle, sir, is the proper one to go upon. The hope of reward, and the fear of punishment, govern men in politics and religion.”
“You have expressed some apprehension,” said I, turning to the senator, “that Mr. Van Buren, whom I suppose you mean by the successor of General Jackson, might not be able to retain the reins of government long.”
“If I did so,” replied the senator, “it was not because Mr. Van Buren’s principles are not fully as orthodox as Jackson’s; but he will be called on the stage immediately after a great actor will have left it, in order to perform a part not originally intended for him. He may be a much greater statesman than General Jackson, and yet fail to satisfy the country. He may not be allowed to act out his own views, and unable to identify himself with the party as General Jackson did,—be reduced to an exceedingly precarious position. Besides, his means of reward, as my friend chooses to call them, will be limited; General Jackson having already distributed the best offices among his friends, and the power of creating new ones being with great reluctance granted by the people. As regards the power of punishment, Mr. Van Buren will be left entirely impotent; General Jackson having already cleared the vineyard of the most noxious weeds, and the dismissal from office of a person appointed by Jackson being sure of raising a hue and cry throughout the country.”
“All that may be,” observed the second senator; “but Mr. Van Buren is a shrewd man.”
“So he is; but all the shrewdness in the world will not change the disagreeable predicament in which he will be placed at the resignation of General Jackson. I am still afraid of the bank question.”
“That is long ago knocked on the head.”
“I wish it was; but I cannot bring myself to think so. The smallest commercial crisis—and our country is continually exposed to the largest ones—may revive the hopes of the opposition. It is the peculiar curse of our country never to come to a lasting conclusion on any political principle. What is law under one administration is abolished under another, and vice versâ, just as the one or the other party happens to command a majority of votes.
“What doctrine may now be considered as settled in the United States?—Not one; except that we are opposed to royalty—principally on account of its expenses. There is the system of internal improvements; have we come to a conclusion with regard to that?—No; the democratic party merely let it fall through, in order that the Whigs on obtaining power may take it up again. There is the American system with the high tariff; how does that question stand?—The parties are precisely in the same position in which they were before the passing of the Compromise Bill in 1832-3; the North calling for a protective system, and the South determined to nullify.[25] And so it is with the question of a United States’ bank, the merit of each principle being every year newly tested by the result of the elections. This state of things is far from being enviable, as it renders the possession of property every day more and more insecure.”