on. In Virginia certainly,
a large number, perhaps a majority of the Cincinnati were opposed to
it. Two[79] of them in congress at the time, and were among the most
zealous supporters of Mr. Jefferson, and of that system of measures
which he termed republican. The very letter under discussion contains
an assertion incompatible with this construction of these terms. "The
whole landed interest is republican." At the date of this letter there
were few if any members of the Cincinnati in the south who were not
also land holders. In the southern region generally, the army of our
revolution was officered by land holders and their sons.

[Footnote 79: Colonels Cabell and Par.]

But if the writer of the letter could have intended to designate the
members of the Cincinnati as "Samsons in the field," could he also
have alluded to them as "Solomons in council?" Were the brave and
hardy men who passed their youth, not in college, not in study, but
under arms, suddenly converted, all of them, into "Solomons in
council?" That some of them were entitled to this appellation is
acknowledged with pride and pleasure, but as a class, it could not fit
them. It is difficult to treat the proposition seriously.

It is impossible for the intelligent reader to concur with Mr.
Jefferson in the conclusion he draws from these premises, when he
says,[80] "General Washington then understanding perfectly what and
whom I meant to designate in both phrases, and that they could not
have any application or view to himself, could find in neither any
cause of offence to himself."

[Footnote 80: Vol. iv. p. 406.]

But were it otherwise, had Mr. Jefferson been as successful in the
opinion of others as he would seem to be in his own, in proving that
the phrases on which he reasons do not comprehend General Washington,
what would be gained? Would it follow that the word "executive" did
not mean the President, or that it excluded General Washington who was
President when the letter was written, and had been President during
the whole time while the laws were enacted, and the measures carried
into execution, which he so harshly criminates? If the word
"executive" must mean him, does it palliate the injury to be assured
that the writer did not class him among "Samsons in the field" or
"Solomons in council?"

It is matter of some surprise to find a letter written so late as
June, 1824, on the political paragraph contained in the letter to
Mazzei,