home, freedom was to be invigorated by occasional rebellions,
not to be put down too sharply, for fear of discouraging the people--the
tree of liberty was to be watered with blood. Abroad, custom-house
regulations would keep the peace of the seas. Embargo and
non-intercourse must bring France and England to their good behavior.

Mr. Jefferson had his political panacea: all disorders would infallibly
be cured by it. He puffed it in his journals and extolled its virtues in
his state papers. He congratulated his countrymen upon his election; he
called it the revolution of 1800. Now at length they could try the
panacea. What wonders did it work? The Federalists can point to the
results of their twelve years of power: credit created out of
bankruptcy; prosperity out of union; a great nation made out of thirteen
small ones--an achievement far beyond that Themistocles could boast of.
Jefferson added the Louisiana Territory to the Union; but this, the only
solid result of his Administration, was totally inconsistent with his
principles. Did he render any other service to the country? We know of
none. His 'Quaker' theories and 'terrapin' policy increased the contempt
of our enemies, cost the nation millions of money to no purpose, and
made the war of 1812 inevitable.

No one can deny that Jefferson was a monster of party tactics and
strategy. He knew well how to get up a cry, to excite the _odium
vulgare_ against his antagonists, to play skilfully upon the class
feeling of poor against rich, and to turn to profit every popular
weakness and meanness. He drilled and organized his followers, and led
them well disciplined to victory. But on the grander field of
statesmanship he was wanting. He was what Bonaparte called an
ideologist. A principle, however true, may fail in its application,
because other principles, equally true, may then come into action and
vitiate the result. These collateral principles Jefferson never deigned
to consider. He had no conception of expediency, of which a wise
statesman never loses sight. Results he thought must be advantageous,
provided processes were according to his principles. His object appears
to have been rather a government after his theories than a good
government. And in this respect he is the type of the impracticable and
mischief-making class of reformers numerous in this country.

Jefferson seems to have been unable to grasp the real political
character of the American people, the path