Part 70

It will nevertheless be recollected, that, about that period, the shock given to the humane feelings of the American people, by the murder of Louis XVI. their benefactor during the war in this country, and by the death and sufferings of his queen and family, had mostly subsided. The great American public still continued warmly and sincerely attached to what was then viewed as the cause of the French people: and therefore, whatever may have been the real design of setting up a Democratic Society in Philadelphia, at that point of time—a design only known to its founders,—it is certain, that many highly estimable and meritorious citizens, and firm friends of the existing government, were elected members of that society, without any previous intimation being given to them of such an intention: some of those persons never attended any of the meetings of the society; and others soon discontinued their attendance. If it were actually formed on the model of the Jacobin Club of Paris, by some of those with whom the scheme originated, it cannot be rationally presumed that men of great purity of reputation, in public as well as private life, would either seek admission into such an assembly, knowing it had any criminal views; nor would they, if chosen members of it without their knowledge and consent, participate in its proceedings, should these be found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or dishonourable. Yet it is a matter of notoriety, that persons of such characters were in some instances enrolled among the members of the Democratic Society in Philadelphia, at its commencement and soon after its organization, in the spring of 1793.

It may be readily supposed, that such of its members as meant well, would be desirous of placing at the head of that body, a man of unimpeachable patriotism and integrity; and it is equally reasonable to conclude, that, had there been a majority of its members, whose secret designs were inimical to the true interest of the country or the well-being of the government,—even these would wish to disguise their intentions, under the nominal auspices of a character universally respected and esteemed. Such a man was Dr. Rittenhouse; and therefore was he selected by the Philadelphia Democratic Society, as their President. At the time of his election to that station, he held the highly important office of Director of the Mint, under a commission from President Washington; for whose public and private character he always entertained the most exalted respect, besides the personal regard, which the writer of these Memoirs knows to have subsisted between them. It is not presumable, taking all considerations into view, that Dr. Rittenhouse suffered any serious diminution in the esteem of that virtuous and discerning statesman, by the circumstance of the Doctor being placed at the head of the Democratic Society: for he not only continued to hold the Directorship of the Mint, but, when he offered his resignation of that high trust, two years afterwards, the President’s reluctance to accept it yielded only to the Doctor’s urgent solicitation to decline a further continuance in the office.

Whatever, therefore, may have been the real views and intentions of some of the members of the Democratic Society which was formed in Philadelphia, in 1793,—even if those of a majority of their number were highly unjustifiable,—no imputation, unfavourable to Dr. Rittenhouse’s character, either as a good citizen or an upright man, could in the smallest degree be attached to him, by reason of his having been chosen a President of that body, at the time of its organization.

-----

Footnote 279:

Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same licentious writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist, declared, in the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He asserted, not only that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of the Democratic Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed the inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged the malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the “inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body, on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse, but by another person, as “President pro tem.”

-----

That Dr. Rittenhouse was a zealous advocate for the liberties of mankind, is unquestionable: but, much as he abhorred slavery and oppression of every kind, did he deprecate turbulence and licentiousness in the people, and wars of ambition, avarice or injustice, undertaken by their rulers. He was decidedly friendly to those measures of civil government, which are best calculated to maintain order, tranquillity, and safety in the state, on just and honourable principles. It can scarcely be doubted by any one, intimately acquainted with his character, that he must have concurred in sentiments similar to those attributed by the biographer of Washington to that great man, or this subject,—in the following observation: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy the difference is like that between order and chaos. Real liberty, he thought, was to be secured only by preserving the authority of the laws, and maintaining the energy of government. Scarcely did society present two characters which, in his opinion, less resembled each other, than a patriot and a demagogue.”

Mr. Rittenhouse, it must be rationally supposed, was less acquainted with mankind, than General Washington was known to be: he had much fewer and more limited opportunities of studying human nature; and professions of pretended patriots were, therefore, more likely to impose on the unsuspecting honesty of his nature. He may even have been deceived, for a while, and ere the plausible fallacies of theorists in matters of civil polity, emanating from the philosophy of the French school, had yet been manifested to the world. A practical philosopher himself, he must have contemplated with pity, if not with indignation, the doctrines of the followers of Pyrrho: with whom it was a fundamental principle, that there is nothing that can be denominated true or false, right or wrong, honest or dishonest, just or unjust; or, in other words, that there is no standard beyond law or custom; and that uncertainty and doubt are attached to all things. Nevertheless, on these doctrines of the sceptical philosophers of antiquity are founded that monstrous and wicked tenet of most of the modern sceptics, that the end justifies the means!—a principle destructive of all the foundations of religion and morals. Well might the Abbé le Blanc exclaim, when noticing this mischievous sect of philosophers, seventy years ago,—“Is it not surprising, that men should endeavour to acquire the esteem of the public, by striving to break the most sacred band of all societies; in declaring their opinion to others, that there is neither virtue nor vice, truth nor doubt.”—“Our modern philosophers,” says the learned Abbé in another place, “have been too confident.”

-----

Footnote 280:

The Abbé le Blanc (or the writer who assumed that appellation) names, of this metaphysical tribe, Hobbes, Lord Shaftesbury, Tindal and Collins, all Englishmen; though his own country has long been the superlatively prolific soil of infidelity in religion, and chimerical theories in every department of science: such philosophers abound in France. He observes very justly, however, that “there is nothing so improperly made use of, as the name philosopher.” See Le Blanc’s Letters on the English and French Nations.

-----

This is certainly correct, in one point of view; although the assertion seems to imply a contradiction in terms, so far as it applies to the metaphysical scepticism of many, assuming the honourable appellation of Philosophers, without being entitled to the true character. What were the sentiments of Dr. Rittenhouse, concerning the tenets of men of this description, may be fairly inferred, not only from the manner in which he has introduced the names of Berkeley and Hume into the Oration which he pronounced before the Philosophical Society, in the year 1775, but from other observations and reflexions contained in that discourse, as well as from the general tenure of opinions expressed by him on various occasions.

At an early period of the French revolution, a circumstance occurred, which, from its connexion in some particulars with the life of our Philosopher, is here entitled to notice.

On the 7th of August 1783, and after peace had been proclaimed, congress unanimously passed a resolution in the following words——“Resolved, That an equestrian statue of General Washington be erected at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established;—that the statue be of bronze: the General to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand, and his head, encircled with a laurel wreath. The Statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to be represented, in basso relievo, the following principal events of the war, in which General Washington commanded in person: the evacuation of Boston;—the capture of the Hessions, at Trenton;—the battle of Princeton;—the action of Monmouth;—and the surrender of York.—On the upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be engraved as follows: “The United States in Congress assembled ordered this Statue to be erected, in the year of our Lord 1783, in honour of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the illustrious Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, during the war which vindicated and secured their Liberty, Sovereignty and Independence.”

-----

Footnote 281:

The legislature of Virginia, in their first session after the resignation of the Commander in Chief, passed the following resolution:—

“Resolved, that the executive be requested to take measures for procuring a Statue of General Washington, to be of the finest marble and best workmanship, with the following inscription on its pedestal.

“The general assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia have caused this statue to be erected as a monument of affection and gratitude to GEORGE WASHINGTON, who, uniting to the endowments of the HERO, the virtues of the PATRIOT, and exerting both in establishing the Liberties of his Country, has rendered his name dear to his fellow-citizens, and given the world an immortal example of true glory.”

This resolution was afterwards carried into effect: the statue which it decreed was executed by Houdon, and occupies a conspicuous place, in a spacious area in the centre of the capital at Richmond, in Virginia.

-----

This was an honourable testimony of the gratitude and affectionate respect of the nation, towards the Hero and Patriot, who so eminently merited both; and it was a sincere effusion of the heart, in the representatives of the American people, while the transcendent virtues of a WASHINGTON, and his then recent services in his country’s cause, yet inspired every generous breast with a faithful remembrance of his worth: It was a laudable proof of the patriotism that actuated the public mind, at a period, when, in the words of an enlightened historian, “the glow of expression in which the high sense universally entertained of his services was conveyed, manifested a warmth of feeling seldom equalled in the history of man.”

-----

Footnote 282:

Chief-Justice Marshall, in his Life of George Washington.

-----