CHAPTER III

Mr. Van Buren's professional career, in Kinderhook, from the period of his admission to the Bar, in 1803, to his removal to the city of Hudson, in 1808.

Near the close of his twenty-first year, the subject of this memoir began the practice of his profession, as an attorney at law, in the village of Kinderhook. He formed a partnership in business with the Hon. James I. Van Alen, a half-brother on his mother's side. Mr. Van Alen was considerably his senior and had already acquired no small degree of political and professional distinction. His early kindness to the subject of this memoir has already been alluded to.

Mr. Van Buren had previously been admitted as an attorney in the Supreme Court, and at the first succeeding session of the Columbia County Court, he was enrolled in the list of its attorneys and counsellors.

The bar of Columbia County, at that time, embraced some of the most distinguished members of the legal profession in the state of New York. It will not be invidious to mention the names of William W. Van Ness, (afterwards a Judge of the Supreme Court in New York,) Elisha Williams, Thomas P. Grosvenor and Jacob R. Van Rensselaer. Many other distinguished names might be added to the list, but the gentlemen already mentioned were at that time in the full practice of their profession and for legal knowledge and splendid talents were surpassed by few lawyers in the state.

Such was the field of competition upon which the youthful candidate then entered. But in order fully to understand the difficulties with which he contended and the circumstances which contributed to the formation of his character and fame, it will be necessary to advert to the state of political parties at the period alluded to; for the political and professional acts of Mr. Van Buren have been so closely interwoven, from his first entrance upon the duties of active life, that the description of the one class cannot well be separated from that of the other.

It is not the object of the present writer to present a political history of the times, any farther than may be necessary to the clear elucidation of the principles and character of the subject of this narrative. It has been truly said by a writer of great celebrity in the departments both of biogra

phy and history, that "the biographer never ought to introduce public events, except as far as they are absolutely necessary to the illustration of character; and that the historian should rarely digress into biographical particulars, except as far as they contribute to the clearness of his narrative of political occurrences." * But as the political course of Mr. Van Buren, appears to the writer to present a pure and attractive example for the imitation of the young men of our country, it would seem that an account of his life and opinions, should, in some measure, be a text book of democratic principles.

It is well known that the people of these states have always been divided into two broadly separated and distinctly marked parties. One of these parties has been the constant antagonist of popular influence, equality and freedom; the other has constantly relied on the capacity of the people for self-government and has, at all times, regarded their voice as the ultimate rule of action in all political matters. A writer of considerable research, and of high authority where he is not under the bias of party prejudice, has intimated that this great division began at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution;† but this, perhaps, is not the most accurate view of the origin of these parties.

* Life of Sir Thomas More, by Sir James Mackintosh.

+ Pitkin's political and civil History of the United States, Vol. II,, p. 352.

A closer observation will show that the elements of this division existed anterior to the Revolution. Indeed these elements are inherent in the nature of man, and have separated mankind, in all countries and in all ages, into the lovers and champions of popular rights on one side, and the oppressors of their fellow-men, on the other. But in the present place, it is purposed to consider rather the historical, than the philosophical origin of these parties.

During the whole period of British aggression and American suffering, a strong party existed in this country, averse to any demonstrations of resistance to England or any exertions for the protection of colonial freedom. The popular voice was divided in regard to public measures, from the operation of various motives. Some of those who were for passive submission, feared English power; others loved English patronage; and all distrusted the capacity of a free people to govern

themselves.

The same division was perceptible during the war of the Revolution; though the violence of the enemy forced into the popular ranks, for a time, many who were at heart averse to a republican form of government. Many of the colonists had been educated in Europe, others had family connections there, and a still larger number had, by reading or travel, formed high notions of the muchlauded excellence of the British Constitution. These persons would gladly have preserved in

America, many features of an aristocratic government, and they saw with alarm and regret the unparalleled determination of the American people, never to cease from the contest until they had prostrated every vestige of authority, proceeding from any other source than the will of the people.

Before the disbanding of the American army, it is pretty well understood, that two of the general officers, who stood high in its affections, proposed, very distinctly, to General Washington to assume monarchical powers, and promised to sustain him by the armies under their control. Fortunately for the cause of freedom, that great and good man was equally incapable of being influenced by personal ambition, and of distrusting the ability of freemen to govern themselves.

It would not be difficult to point out frequent indications, on the part of leading politicians, of a preference for monarchical institutions and of a distrust of popular discretion, during the period which intervened between the termination of the war of the Revolution and the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The country was then divided into two distinct parties, the republicans and monarchists, the former insisting on the utmost liberty of action, consistent with the preservation of social rights, and the latter struggling to curtail popular rights, and looking to a monarchy and an hereditary nobility as the only protections of individual interests.