into chaos. No prejudice however hoary with antiquity was spared, no opinion however fortified by authority was respected; no right however legalized by the sanction of ages was sacred-save that of property. Neither religion nor morals was unviolated by the thorough-going reformers of this terrible epoch; the sacred bond of marriage, that strongest ligament of human society, was rudely torn asunder. Titanlike, they scaled the very heavens with impious defiance. Yet the sanctity of possession was respected; and if the estates of men were often cruelly confiscated and for trivial reasons, it was never on the ground that all men at all times were equally entitled to property in the earth, in its fruits, and those of industry. That which withstood a Marat, a Robespierre, and a Danton, has not much to fear from "Slamm, Bang & Co." The fact is that property is the foundation of civilized society, as marriage is of domestic morals. To talk about society without the basis of individual possession, is to talk about morality without the existence of the conjugal tie. In the wildest state man has property in his implements of war and of the chase: while yet nomadic he recognizes individual right in his horses and cattle; and civilized society, from its most incipient agricultural condition, is as much an aggregation of possessions as of individuals or families.

The fallacy at the foundation of the community doctrine is this, that it contemplates the earth without taking into view the additional value bestowed upon it by the industry of man. Without the improvement which labor has bestowed upon it, this world would be a barren waste or a rank wilderness. What were the possession of a continent, without the application of agriculture and the arts? It is labor which gives nearly all its value to the earth; the industry of man which does much more for him, than all the bounties of nature. It is the opinion of some political economists, De Tracy among the rest, that all value is derived from labor, and no one will deny, that it proceeds chiefly from that source. To talk, then, about the original and indefeasible right of all men to the earth is to forget the fact, that it owes its wealth and its worth to the industry of man, which is chiefly stimulated by, nay, which would not have been exerted without the existence of individual possession. There can certainly be no universal claim by nature or original right, to houses and furniture, and manufactured products, and the improvement of agriculture, even if it were conceded, as it regards the mere soil, which would not however, be very desirable without the labor by which it has been cultivated and adorned. Now, it is only individual possession, and the right of testamentary transmission of property, which has induced or can impel men to make those untiring exertions which have converted the rude gifts of nature into the products of subsistence, the means of comfort, the commodities of luxury, and the refinements of civilization.

Even, then, conceding the original right of every one to the earth, as it came from the hands of the Creator, this has, ever since the origin of human society been merged by silent and irresistible compact into the more important and indispensable privileges of individual possession. This is the oldest and highest of all prescriptive titles. What is the state of man by nature, it is hard to say. All our speculations and reasonings must regard him as a gregarious animal, and have reference to the social state in which he has existed from the earliest traditions, and which alone comes within the purview of political science.

But it is rather too late in the day to proclaim these trite truisms. It is vain, too, to vindicate them, because people who do not at once recognize their conclusions, are not to be addressed by reason. The community doctrine has not the poor merit of originality or even novelty. It has always been a seductive idea, when sincerely entertained, to weak and amiable minds. The speculations of the ancient philosophy are full of it; and if early christianity, fresh from the precepts of its divine founder, "had all things in common," the practicability of the doctrine in the present age of the world, seems incompatible with the erring instincts of humanity. The anabaptists of Germany and other sects attempted it on a small scale and in a modified shape, but with poor success. Among these are the Moravians. We know not how their political microcosm has fared in Germany, but in this country, they have been already compelled to abandon, in a great measure, the principle. The example of the Shakers will scarcely be appealed to for its support, since it would furnish an equally strong argument for the possibility of eradicating the strongest of the natural instincts. This brings to mind an anecdote of one of the popes, who when told by a cardinal with a dismal face, that a sect whose principal tenet was the injunction of celibacy had sprung up, and threatened the very existence of the hierarchy, coolly observed, "don't be alarmed, senza amore non si riusce, without love it is impossible to succeed." The wild theories of St. Simonianism were almost too extravagant for apprehension, and too ephemeral for notice. The homely experiment of Rapp, and the more philosophical scheme of Owen, have terminated, the one in litigation, the other in abandonment. Folly, like dulness, never dies. As long as the world lasts these projects will be revived by the dupers or the duped, only to perish and be born again. They are founded upon an appeal to undying principles and feelings in human nature. These might be easily indicated and illustrated, but we have not time nor space for the task. Human commonwealths must be constructed with different materials from "the ants' republic and the realm of bees."

If agrarianism be an universal absurdity, how much more is it so in this country, where land is so cheap, and many millions of un

appropriated territory render possession so accessible to all. Even the accumulated wages of labor soon consolidate themselves into property of some kind, and it is rare to meet with a man who is not, has not been, or will not be, the owner of land or a house. In such circumstances men find it much easier, as it is more natural, to acquire property than to make war upon it. That the imputation is peculiarly unjust, as applied to the democratic party, is obvious from the fact, that its strength lies chiefly in the yeomanry of the country, who are almost to a man property holders; while the opposite influence has always been most potent in cities, where the class of mere proletaries is chiefly to be found. Again, to show that the tendency is rather in the opposite direction, or the danger from the other quarter, it must have struck every one, that as soon as the Opposition succeeded in propagating extensively the belief that the Administration was hostile to the rights of property, it was left in a minority, and it is only recovering its predominance by dint of disproving the accusation. We would ask, too, whether the republican leaders are, from character and position, more open to the imputation of being adverse to order, industry, and property, than other members of the community? Look, for example, at the present Administration, and acknowledge if it be possible to find men who, from their habits, principles, and possessions, present stronger guarantees against the suspicion of holding these wild and anti-social opinions?

But we must bring this discussion to a close. It is the more useless, because the imputation of agrarianism to any fragment, even, of the republican party, is false as it is ridiculous. We have yet to see the democrat who deserves the title. The accusation is unfounded, gratuitous, calumnious. The allegation is not made. with sincerity. Why labor to convince those who have no convictions? The republican creed is clear and simple. It is the retention of as much individual liberty as is consistent with the security of each and the general harmony. It respects the persons, the rights, the property, nay, the very prejudices, of all. It legislates not for individuals or classes, but for the whole. It recognises no political distinction or superiority. It leaves to men the control of their own actions and pursuits, in as far as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. The tastes, the habits, the fashions of the citizen, it does not interfere with, much less attempt to regulate or enforce. It permits society to arrange itself by its own volitions, and leaves the associations of its members to their respective elective affinities. It recognises no exclusive privileges, no selfish monopolies; but embraces all with indiscriminate protection. The democratic creed may be summed up in this brief formula. As little government as possible; that little emanating from, and controlled by, the people; and uniform in its application to all.

"The charges against me are all of one kind, that I have pushed the principles of
justice and benevolence too far,-further than a cautious policy would warrant;
and further than the opinions of many would go along with me.
In every acci-
dent which may happen through life-in pain, in sorrow, in depression, and dis
tress-I will call to mind this accusation, and be comforted. "-Edmund Burke.

Ay! let the mean, the grov'ling, brand thy name !
"Twill swell thy lofty triumph. Such may bow
Like supple reed before the breath of power,

But though it whispered round thee bland and sweet,
Thou wouldst not heed the tempter.-Then it came
As with a tempest's rush on thee and thine,
But all unmoved thou didst abide the shock.
On honor's rock thy soul was rifted deep,
And storm might howl around, but ne'er o'erthrow.
Unwavering champion of thy country's cause,
Shrink never from thy high and glorious task,
Till free, self-governed, from the stranger's thrall
Released, a young Republic shall arise,
Star-crowned, amid the nations, and shall hail
With praise and blessing her tried patriot's name.
Still at the altar of blest Freedom stand,—
Fearless and spotless, its high minister,-
And tend the sacred fire thy hand hath lit,
Till it shall flame to heaven, that beacon-light,
Kindling with its own glow each patriot heart.
What though a cloud now hides it from the view
Of the proud "Sons of Liberty," still they feel
"Tis all undimm'd and pure, and yet shall guide
To free and equal rights.

That altar's fire!

Each patriot shall guard it-all who love Justice and mercy press to heap the pile,— And earth's nobility, who will not bow Opinion's neck beneath the foot of power, Shall stir the flame. And may it not be fann'd By woman's feeble breath, since in her heart Full many a chord thrills deeply at thy name! ALBANY, 12th February, 1838.

THAYENDANEGEA.*

PRE-EMINENT among the Indians of the United States, during the whole period of our colonial history, were the confederated tribes of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Onondagas, and Senecas, by the French commonly called the Iroquois, and by the English the Five Nations, and afterwards, the Six Nations, in consequence of the accession of the Tuscaroras to the league.

When the French entered Canada, they found these Indians where Montreal now stands, and engaged in war with a neighboring tribe called the Adisondocs. This war continued, with sundry vicissitudes, until the Iroquois proved at length victorious, and the power of the Adisondocs was completely broken; but meanwhile the Iroquois saw fit, or perhaps were compelled by the operations of the French, to recede along the St. Lawrence towards Lake Ontario, by reason of which that part of the river St. Lawrence bore the name of Iroquois, preserved in the treaty of 1783, in the definition of the boundaries of the United States on the side of Canada. Establishing the seat of their power in the region of the Lakes Ontario and Erie, the Iroquois drove before them the less energetic, or less powerful bands which previously occupied the country, and spread themselves or their authority and influence south and west over an extensive territory, which now comprehends New York, Western Pennsylvania, and most of Ohio. This great movement of the Iroquois, displacing the tribes immediately in contact with them, which tribes again pressed upon, and displaced, others beyond, diffused far and wide a knowledge of the warlike bands whose advance originated the general disturbance of preexisting relations. Among the remotest Indians of New England, the Mohawk was a name of terror. The fugitive Hurons and Ottowas bore the name and the fame of the Iroquois inland to the Sioux of the Upper Mississippi. But that, which above all other things distinguished the Five Nations, and which, probably, more than their superiority in courage and prowess, enabled them to overpower so many hostile tribes, was their political organization. In general, the Indians of North America have been so utterly savage as not to possess enough either of municipal or political organization to enable them to act together efficiently for any length of time, as tribes; and still less have their scattered bands been capable of as

* Life of Joseph Brandt-Thayendanegea, including the Indian war of the American Revolution. By William L. Stone, 2 vols. 8vo. New York. Published by George Dearborn & Co. 1838.