formed, and which his biographer
perpetuates, resulted from the same unfortunate weakness.

We have dwelt upon this subject, both on account of the prominence which
Mr. Randall has given it, and because, as admirers of Mr. Jefferson, we
wished to make a full and distinct statement of the most common and
reasonable complaint against him. The biographer has done his hero a
great injury by reviving this absurd business, and has cast suspicion
upon the accuracy of his book. It is time that our historians approached
their subjects with more liberal tempers. They should cease to be
advocates. Whatever the American people may think about the policy of
the Federalists, they will not impute to them unpatriotic designs. That
party comprised a majority of the Revolutionary leaders. It is not
strange that many of them fell into error. They were wealthy and had the
pride of wealth. They had been educated with certain ideas about rank,
which a military life had strengthened. The liberal theories which the
war had engendered were not understood, and, during the French
Revolution, they became associated with acts of atrocity which Mr.
Jefferson himself condemned. Abler men than the Federalists failed to
discriminate between the crime and the principles which the criminals
professed. Students of affairs are now in a better position than Mr.
Jefferson was, to ascertain the truth, and they will not find it
necessary to adopt his prejudices against a body of men who have adorned
our history by eloquence, learning, and valor.

Jefferson's position in Washington's government must have been extremely
disagreeable. There was hardly a subject upon which he and Hamilton
agreed. Washington had established the practice of disposing of the
business before the Cabinet by vote. Each member was at liberty to
explain his views, and, owing to the wide differences in opinion, the
Cabinet Council became a debating society. This gave Hamilton an
advantage. Jefferson never argued, and, if he had attempted it, he would
have been no match for his adversary. He contented himself with a plain
statement of his views and the reasons which influenced him, made in the
abstract manner which was habitual with him. Hamilton, on the other
hand, was an adroit lawyer, and a painstaking dialectician, who
carefully fortified every position. He made long speeches to the
Cabinet, with as much earnestness as one would use in court. Though
Jefferson had great influence with t