JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE,

OF KENTUCKY.

THE most fortunate gentleman connected with politics in our country is certainly the young statesman whose name I have just written. I say fortunate, in a sense complimentary to the nation as well as to him; for it is rare to find a man of his talents and capacity so profoundly appreciated at so early a period of life. John Adams was fifty-four years old when elected to the VicePresidency; Jefferson, fifty-three; Aaron Burr, forty-four; George Clinton, sixty-five; Elbridge Gerry, sixty-nine; Daniel D. Tompkins, forty-three; John C. Calhoun, forty-three; Martin Van Buren, fifty; Richard M. Johnson, fifty-seven; John Tyler, fifty-one; George M. Dallas, fifty-three; Millard Fillmore, forty-eight; William R. King, sixty-six; while the subject of this sketch was elected to the high office he now holds at the age of thirty-five. He is by far the youngest of the most prominent men in the country, and it is with no little pride that his State and his friends throughout the United States may point to that fact. The man whose career inspires such reliance that it can meet, as his has safely done, the rivalry of more experienced celebrities, and harmonize all into an approving satisfaction at his elevation, has achieved that which in our day and nation is one of the highest testimonies to his capacity and merits. The man whom the assembled wisdom of the Democracy agreed to elevate to the second place in the nation is a man to be judged not by his years, but by his suitableness to the age in which he lives. In this connection, it is a noteworthy fact that the two youngest of the really prominent men of the Democratic or any other party-Messrs. Breckinridge, and Orr, of South Carolina-at the same time presided over the two Houses of the National Legislature.

John C. Breckinridge is a native of Kentucky, and was born

near Lexington, January 16, 1821. He received his education at Centre College, enjoyed the benefits of some months at Princeton, and, after going through the requisite law-studies at Transylvania Institute, was admitted to the bar at Lexington. Hoping to find a fruitful field in which to sow his knowledge, he emigrated to the Northwest, but, after something less than a couple of years spent in Burlington, Iowa, he returned to his native State, and took up his abode at Lexington, where he still resides. He entered immediately on the practice of his profession, and met with a well-merited success.

The trump of war, however, excited the military ardor of our young Kentuckian, and the result was creditable service as a major of infantry during the Mexican War. He also distinguished himself as the counsel for Major-General Pillow in the celebrated court-martial of that officer.

On the return of Major Breckinridge from Mexico, he was elected to the Kentucky Legislature, and created so favorable an impression as a legislator that he was elected to Congress from the Ashland District, and, being re-elected, held his seat from 1851 to 1855.

It was not long before the name of Mr. Breckinridge was in the mouths, so to speak, of all reading people. It is not so far back but that his difference with the "Democratic Review" is familiar to most readers; but the high station attained by Mr. Breckinridge since, makes it imperative to record as matter of history the occasion which gave him his first prominence.

The "Democratic Review" for January, 1852, burst upon the political world with a startling fury. Old jog-trot politicians were aghast. Canvassing the question of the Presidency, so soon to come up, the Review said that, while the fathers of the people personally lived, it was an easy task to select the candidate most worthy of success and most certain of attaining it. Now it was somewhat different. Looking at the defeat of the Democracy, in 1848, after the brilliant Democratic administration of Polk, it believed that "if it were impossible for the old politicians, the surviving lieutenants of the days of Jackson, to agree, in 1848, on the election of a candidate, it was ten times more impossible for them to agree on the nomination of any one of themselves as a successful candidate" in '52. Nor would it

be well if they could agree, thought the Review, for they had had "the control of the destinies of the country and the party, but, by lack of statesmanship, lack of temper, lack of discretion, and, most of all, by lack of progress, they brought into our ranks discord and dissension; and the party they received united, strong, and far in advance, they left a wreck—a mutinous wreck struggling in the slough of questions settled by the federal compact of the United States." To meet the exigencies of the times, the Review advocated and announced a new generation of statesmen, not trammelled with the ideas of an anterior era, men who would bring not only young blood, but young ideas, to the councils of the Republic.*

Mr. Breckinridge was in favor of progress, liked young blood and young ideas, but objected to the course of the Review. The Review had been most extensively circulated: indeed, no Review in America, before or since, made any such sensation as the "Democratic" did in 1852. "Politicians were in a nervous fever in the breathing-time from month to month, between congratulating themselves on not having been noticed in the last number, and fear of being scarified in the next, The newspapers were eager to get an early copy, to extend the obituary of some decapitated 'Fogy,' or contradict the rumor that the Democratic Review' had killed him. Being always in a rage itself, the Review soon created a like feeling in the public: it became the rage. Comic papers caricatured its writers, and revivified its victims into ludicrous notoriety; comic versifiers squibbed on its suggestions; leading journals, all over the country, poured out praise and denunciation with equal heartiness; and the wise heads of Congress even took to criticizing and debating on its merits and men." Deeming that the article in question was generally considered "an attack upon almost every man in the Democratic party whose name had been mentioned in connection with the Presidency," Mr. Breckinridge felt bound to notice it in the House. The February number followed up the denun

See article "Eighteen-Fifty-Two and the Presidency." Dem. Review, Jan. 1852. Written by the late Thomas Devin Reilly.

† See Memoir of Thomas Devin Reilly, by John Savage, in "'98 and '48," p.

ciatory promises and premises of the January issue, and gave the gentleman from Kentucky still further grounds of objection, especially as General Butler, of Kentucky, had been described by name as an "old fogy."

In March, he bitterly and boldly reviewed the reviewer, and denounced the publication and its conductors, as attempting to promote particular interests by traducing the most honored names in the ranks of the Democracy. It was conceived by some prominent men and journals that Mr. Breckinridge's speech was an indirect attack on Judge Douglas, he being the only prominent man not assailed by the Democratic Review. Mr. Breckinridge also rather implied that the Review was the organ of the Senator from Illinois, and that it was for that reason he was exempted from denunciation in its pages. Hon. Mr. Richardson authoritatively denied that Douglas had any connection with the publication; and Hon. E. C. Marshall, of California, made a very vigorous reply to the gentleman from Kentucky, in defence of the Review," a periodical in which he felt no special interest, except in so far as it was ably edited.”

The Review continued to create great anxiety among the politicians and newspapers, and, in view of the debate in Congress, placed both Messrs. Marshall and Breckinridge on record in its pages, the former in a very fine steel-plate portrait, and the latter in an equally elaborate, but tantalizing, review of his speech. The newspapers taking up the debate in Congress, and reviewing the Review, bestowed upon Mr. Breckinridge a large share of notice in the discussion of the affair.

The prominence thus derived, other circumstances helped to sustain.

Introducing (on the 30th of June, 1852) the resolutions of respect to the memory of Henry Clay, who had died the day previous, Mr. Breckinridge laid the fulness of his young heart on the grave of the great Kentuckian, in whom "intellect, person, eloquence, and courage united to form a character fit to command." Standing by that grave, and with the memories of the great dead about him, "the mere legerdemain of politics" appeared contemptible to him. What a reproach was Clay's life on the false policy which would trifle with a great and upright people! "If I were to write his epitaph," said Breckinridge,

"I would inscribe, as the highest eulogy, on the stone which shall mark his resting-place, 'Here lies a man who was in the public service for fifty years, and never attempted to deceive his countrymen.'

In the Thirty-Second Congress, Mr. Breckinridge was instrumental in securing an appropriation for the completion of a cemetery near the city of Mexico, in which the remains of the American officers and soldiers who fell in battle or otherwise in or near the city of Mexico should be interred. He also favored an appropriation for a weekly mail with the Pacific, and advocated putting these contracts out to the lowest bidder.

Though Mr. Breckinridge did not seek to be constantly before the House, he took a very distinguished position, and sometimes in debate was sharp and effective.

Hon. Mr. Giddings, in the course of a speech (16th of March, 1852) on the Compromise Measures and Fugitive-Slave Law, denied that the Federal Government had power to pass laws by which "to compel our officers and people to seize and carry back fugitive slaves." Mr. Breckinridge briefly pushed him into an enunciation of his most extreme doctrines, and then said, "Against the impotent ravings of his baffled fanaticism I place the plain words of the Constitution. To his coarse and offensive language I have no reply."

Again, toward the close of the discussion about the "Democratic Review," Mr. Cartter asked him some questions about that periodical, when Breckinridge retorted, "I did not suppose the gentleman from Ohio would omit a favorable opportunity to ring himself into the debate, and say something which might go upon the record." This turned the laughter of the House on the gentleman from Ohio, who did not get an answer to his inquiry.

With the debate on the Nebraska Bill, in March, 1854, Thirty-Third Congress, Mr. Breckinridge's name is intimately woven. It was during this discussion that his difficulty with the Hon. Mr. Cutting, of New York, took place. On the 21st of March, Mr. Richardson, desiring to reach the Nebraska Bill, heretofore reported by him, moved the House to go into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. After some slight discussion, this motion was lost. Having proceeded with the business on the Speaker's table, several small bills were taken