principles of duty and patriotism induced many of them to swallow humiliations he subjected them to, and to vote as was right, as long as he kept the path of right himself.  The sudden departure of such a man could not but produce a momentary astonishment, and even dismay; but for a moment only.  The good sense of the House rallied around its principles, and, without any leader, pursued steadily the business of the session, did it well, and by a strength of vote which has never before been seen....  The augury I draw from this is, that there is a steady good sense in the legislature and in the body of the nation, joined with good intentions, which will lead them to discern and to pursue the public good under all circumstances which can arise, and that no ignis fatuus will be able to lead them long astray.”

Mr. Jefferson predicted that the lost sheep of the Republican fold would wander off to the arid wastes of Federalism; but he never did so.  His defection was not an inconsistency, but a return to consistency.  He presented himself in his true character thenceforth, which was that of a States’ Rights fanatic.  He opposed the election of Mr. Madison to the Presidency, as he said, because Mr. Madison was weak on the sovereignty of the States.  He opposed the war of 1812 for two reasons:—­1.  Offensive war was in itself unconstitutional, being a national act. 2.  War was nationalizing.  A hundred times before the war, he foretold that, if war occurred, the sovereignty of the States was gone forever, and we should lapse into nationality.  A thousand times after the war, he declared that this dread lapse had occurred.  At a public dinner, after the return of peace, he gave the once celebrated toast, “States’ Rights,—­De mortuis nil nisi bonum.”  As before the war he sometimes affected himself to tears while dwelling upon the sad prospect of kindred people imbruing their hands in one another’s blood, so during the war he was one of the few American citizens who lamented the triumphs of their country’s arms.  In his solitude at Roanoke he was cast down at the news of Perry’s victory on the lake, because he thought it would prolong the contest; and he exulted in the banishment of Napoleon to Elba, although it let loose the armies and fleets of Britain upon the United States.  “That insolent coward,” said he, “has met his deserts at last.”  This Virginia Englishman would not allow that Napoleon possessed even military talent; but stoutly maintained, to the last, that he was the merest sport of fortune.  When the work of restoration was in progress, under the leadership of Clay and Calhoun, John Randolph was in his element, for he could honestly oppose every movement and suggestion of those young orators,—­national bank, protective tariff, internal improvements, everything.  He was one of the small number who objected to the gift of land and money to Lafayette, and one of the stubborn minority who would have seen the Union broken up rather than assent to the Missouri Compromise, or to any Missouri compromise.  The question at issue in all these measures, he maintained, was the same, and it was this:  Are we a nation or a confederacy?