Subsequently, Colquitt was elected to the United States Senate, where he was distinguished as a debater and leading man of the Democratic party; but his talents and peculiar manner were better suited for the debates of the House of Representatives, and the hustings.

Lumpkin was ardent and persuasive.  Colquitt was equally ardent, but more aggressive.  Where Lumpkin solicited with a burning pathos, Colquitt demanded with the bitterest sarcasm.  Lumpkin was slow and considerate; Colquitt was rapid and overwhelming.  The one was the sun’s soft, genial warmth; the other, the north wind’s withering blast.  Colquitt was remarkable for daring intrepidity; Lumpkin for collected firmness.  Lumpkin persuaded; Colquitt frightened.  Both were brave, but Colquitt was fiercely so.  Lumpkin was mild, but determined.  Unaggressive himself, the dignity and gentleness of his character repelled it in others.  The consequence was, that he passed through life without strife with his fellow-man, while Colquitt was frequently in personal conflict with those as impetuous as himself.  The open frankness and social nature of Colquitt won him many friends, and of that description most useful to politicians—­friends who were devoted, who felt for, and preferred him to any other man.  His features were versatile, and variable as an April day, betraying every emotion of his mind—­especially his eyes, which were soft or fierce, as the passion of the heart sprang to view in them, and spoke his soul’s sensations.  His oratory was playful, awakening wild mirth in his auditors, and again it was impetuous and sarcastic, overwhelming with invective and denunciation.

Charles J. Jenkins, a compeer of Lumpkin and Colquitt, was essentially different from both in many of the features of his character.  His mind was more logical, more analytical, and capable of deeper research.  He had little ambition, and whenever he was before the people, it was when his friends thrust him there.  The instinctive morality of his nature, like that of Lumpkin, would never permit the compromise of conscience or dignity of character so often the case with men of ardent natures and intense ambition.  Eminently cool in debate, he never made any attempt at forensic display, but confined himself exclusively to the logic of his subject.  He clearly saw his way, and carefully went along, spurning ornament or volubility, and only compelling into service words which clearly and succinctly conveyed his ideas, and these only elucidated the subject-matter he was discussing.  Strictly honest, and equally truthful, he never deviated, under any circumstances, from what he believed his duty.  Only for a short time was he in the Legislature, and then he displayed in most exciting times the great virtues of his nature.