Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11 eBook

John Lord
This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 263 pages of information about Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11.

Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11 eBook

John Lord
This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 263 pages of information about Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11.
made with England; for in the treaty with Great Britain an amnesty had been agreed to for all acts done during the war by military orders.  The interests of the plaintiff were overlooked in the great question whether the authority of Congress and the law of nations, or the law of a State legislature, should have the ascendency.  In other words, Congress and the State of New York were in conflict as to which should be paramount,—­the law of Congress, or the law of a sovereign State,—­in a matter which affected a national treaty.  If the treaty were violated, new complications would arise with England, and the authority of Congress be treated with contempt.  Hamilton grappled with the subject in the most comprehensive manner,—­like a statesman rather than a lawyer,—­made a magnificent argument in favor of the general government, and gained his case; although it would seem that natural justice was in favor of the poor woman, deprived of the use of her house by a wealthy alien, during the war.  He rendered a service to centralized authority, to the power of Congress.  It was the incipient contest between Federal and State authority.  It was enlightened reason and patriotism gaining a victory over popular passions, over the assumptions of a State.  It defined the respective rights of a State and of the Nation collectively.  It was one of those cases which settled the great constitutional question that the authority of the Nation was greater than that of any State which composed it, in matters where Congress had a recognized jurisdiction.

It was about this time that Hamilton was brought in legal conflict with another young man of great abilities, ambition, and popularity; and this man was Aaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards.  Like Hamilton, he had gained great distinction in the war, and was one of the rising young men of the country.  He was superior to Hamilton in personal popularity and bewitching conversation; his equal in grace of manner, in forensic eloquence and legal reputation, but his inferior in comprehensive intellect and force of character.  Hamilton dwelt in the region of great ideas and principles; Burr loved to resort to legal technicalities, sophistries, and the dexterous use of dialectical weapons.  In arguing a case he would descend to every form of annoyance and interruption, by quibbles, notices, and appeals.  Both lawyers were rapid, logical, compact, and eloquent.  Both seized the strong points of a case, like Mason and Webster.  Hamilton was earnest and profound, and soared to elemental principles.  Burr was acute, adroit, and appealed to passions.  Both admired each other’s talents and crossed each other’s tracks,—­rivals at the Bar and in political aspirations.  The legal career of both was eclipsed by their political labors.  The lawyer, in Hamilton’s case, was lost in the statesman, and in Burr’s in the politician.  And how wide the distinction between a statesman and a politician!  To be a great statesman a man must

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.