Every one is aware that the Democracy of 1844 makes great pretensions to antiquity. It professes to refer its parentage to the Republicans of 1798, and to the democracy of the Jeffersonian era. We think it would be discretion on the part of its leaders to say the least that may be in regard to its birth and childhood; but if, like biographers having the difficult task to impart a fair character to a bad subject, they must commence with the beginning of a vicious life, it would be well to go so far back as to make a reference to facts impossible.
Great differences of opinion did indeed exist among both public and private men at, and soon after, the formation of the government. They were not in regard to the principles of freedom and legal equality, for these were recognised by all—but as to the offices and powers of the federal government, the duration of terms of office, and the constitution and functions of the judiciary and the legislature. A free government was then an untried experiment, adopted with anxious hope, and confided in with trembling. Its wisest framers did not fully comprehend its capacities, its whole mode of action was not yet fully determined, and theories were for the first time to be reduced to practice. It was natural that in such a state of affairs different views of things should arise even among the wise and patriotic. Nearly every man had undergone the perils of war for freedom, and all were anxious to protect the great and dearly-purchased boon for the benefit of those who should come after them. It is seldom, in a contested case, that an intelligent jury of twelve men can agree upon a result, after a basis of facts has been established by evidence. Much less could it be expected that uniformity of opinion would be attained in so serious a matter as that of the formation of a government for a vast country, embracing a multitude of details, and providing for the exigency of a thousand unknown circumstances.
These differences divided the people at the first, and, with some modifications, for many years, into two distinct parties. They were so far parallel to the parties of the present day, as to be, the one for, the other against, those elements of a general government which experience has shown, are best suited to the condition and permanent interests of the people of this country. The modern Democracy are slow to trace back their origin quite to so mistaken a position. Yet the chief distinction is, though our opponents may think it a matter of no consequence, that the leaders of the radical minority of that day were honest men. For if, after so many years of reasonable growth and prosperity with the government, as first constituted, unchanged, professed statesmen are yet found supporting opinions that involve a practical opposition to some of its most important principles, what remains but to consider them either incapable or traitorous?
Not to digress, however, the earliest division of the people arose out of the primitive attempts to form a confederacy of the states, and subsequently on the question of adopting the Constitution so anxiously and wisely framed. The discussions in the several states were protracted and earnest: the friends of the Constitution, with Washington at their head, were designated as Federalists, its enemies Anti-Federalists. But the Constitution once adopted and acquiesced in, the questions which had arisen were rapidly lost sight of; and the latter designation becoming odious, was readily exchanged for the more popular name of Republicans. With the election of Jefferson in 1800 the power passed away from the hands of the Federalists; the old controverted points were settled or forgotten; new and exciting questions, as the impressment of seamen, the embargo, and various foreign relations, followed, engrossing the public mind, and essentially changing the character and position of parties. Finally, the war ensued, which, however looked upon in its origin, eventually created, for the most part, a community of sentiment throughout the country; and by the close of Madison's administration all previous party distinctions were efTectually obliterated. We state results and facts fully established by contemporaneous history. Mr. Monroe entered upon his office by a nearly unanimous choice of the people. The Republican party of the preceding period, known as such, had placed itself on the important practical questions of the day, rather than on any exclusive claims to democracy, such as are now put forth, with little purpose, we think, except to continue party lines, and enable "scurvy politicians" to throw the dice more frequently for the spoils of office. Sometimes, it is true, an alarm was even then occasionally sounded by the demagogue about aristo-
