SOCIETY IN AMERlCA SOCIETY IN AMERlCA
" ....... Those unalterable relations which Providence has ordained that everything should bear to every other. These relations, which are truth itself, the foundation of virtue, and consequently, the only measures of happiness, should be likewise the only measures by which we should direct our reasoning. To these we should conform in good earnest, and not tbink to force nature, and the whole order of her system, by a compliance with our pride and folly, to conform to our artificial regulations. It is by a conformity to this method we owe the discovery of the few truths we know, and the little liberty and rational happiness we enjoy." Burke.
MR. MADISON remarked to me, that the United States had been"useful in proving things before held impossible." Ofsuch proofs, he adduced several. Others, which he did notmention, have since occurred to me; and, among them, the pursuitof the a priori method in forming a constitution:--the apriori method, as it is styled by its enemies, though itsadvocates, with more reason, call it the inductive method. Tillthe formation of the government of the United States, it had beengenerally supposed, and it is so still by the majority of the oldworld, that a sound theory of government can be constructed onlyout of the experience of man in governments; the experiencemankind has had of despotisms, oligarchies, and the mixtures ofthese with small portions of democracy. But the essentialcondition of the fidelity of the inductive rnethod is, that allthe elements of experience should be included. If, in thisparticular problem, of the true theory of government, we take allexperience of government, and leave out all experience of man,except in his hitherto governing or governed state, we shallnever reach a philosophical conclusion. The true applicatiou ofthe inductive method here is to test a theory of governmentdeduced from the principles of human nature, by the results ofall governments of which mankind has had experience. No narrowerbasis will serve for such an induction. Such a method of findinga good theory of government was considered impossihle, till theUnited States "proved" it.
This proof can never be invalidated by anything that can nowhappen in the United States. It is common to say "Wait;these are early days. The experiment will fail yet." Theexperiment of the particular constitution of the United Statesmay fail; but the great principle which, whether successfully ornot, it strives to embody,--the capacity of mankind forself-government, --is established for ever. It has, as Mr.Madison said, proved a thing previously held impossible. If arevolution were to take place to-morrow in the United States, itremains an historical fact that, for half a century, a people hasbeen self-governed; and, till it can be proved that theself-government is the cause of the instability, no revolution,or series of revolutions, can tarnish the lustre, any more thanthey can impair the soundness of the principle that mankind arecapable of self-government. The United States have indeed beenuseful in proving these two things, before held impossible; thefinding a true theory of government, by reasoning from theprinciples of human nature, as well as from the experience ofgovernments; and the capacity of mankind for self-government.
It seems strange that while politics are unquestionably abranch of moral science, bearing no other relation than to theduty and happiness of man, the great principles of his natureshould have been neglected by politicians--with the exception ofhis love of power and desire of gain, --till a set of menassembled in the State House at Philadelphia, in the eighteenthcentury, and there throned a legitimate political philosophy inthe place of a deposed king. The rationale of allpreceding governments had been, "men love power, thereforethere must be punishments for rulers who, having already much,would seize more. Men desire gain; therefore there must bepunishments for those, rulers or ruled, who would appropriate thegains of others." The rationale of the new and"impossible" government is "that all men arecreated equal; that they are endowed by their Creator withcertain inalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure those rights,governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powersfrom the consent of the governed." * This lastrecognizes, over and above what the former admits, the greatprinciples of indefeasible rights; human equality in relation tothese; and the obligation of universal justice.
These, then, are the principles which the statesmen in theState House at Philarlelphia announced as the soul of theirembryo institutions; and the rule through which they were to workwas no less than that golden one which seems to have been, bysome unhappy chance, omitted in the bibles of otherstatesmen--"Do unto others as ye would that they should dounto you." Perhaps it may be reserved for their country toprove yet one more impossible thing--that men can live by therule which their Maker has given them to live by. Meanwhile,every true citizen of that country must necessarily be content tohave his self-government tried by the test of these principles,to which, by his citizenship, he has become a subscriber. He willscorn all comparisons, instituted as a test of merit, between hisown government and those of other countries, which he mustnecessarily consider as of narrower scope and lower aim. Whethersuch comparisons be instituted abroad in a spirit of contempt, orat home in a spirit of complacency, he will regard them equallyas irrelevant, and proving nothing to the best purposes of truecitizens. He will disdain every test but that furnished by thegreat principles propounded in the State House at Philadelphia;and he will quarrel with no results fairly brought out by such atest, whether they inspire him with shame, or with complacency.In either case, he will be animated by them.
If the politics of a country be really derived fromfundamental principles of human nature and morals, the economy,manners, and religion of that country must be designed toharmonise with these principles. The same test must be applicableto all. The inalienable right of all the human race to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, must control theeconomical, as well as the political arrangements of a people;and the law of universal justice must regulate all socialintercourse, and direct all administration of religion.
Politics are morals, all the world over; that is, politicsuniversally implicate the duty and happiness of man. Every branchof morals is, and ought to be considered, a universal concern.Under despotic governments, there is a pretension, more or lesssincere, on the part of the rulers, to moral regards; but fromthese the bulk of the people are, by common consent, cut off. Ifthe bulk of the people saw the truth, that the principles ofpolitics affect them, --are the message of their Maker (asprinciples are) to them, as well as to their rulers, they wouldbecome moral agents in regard to politics, and despotism would beat an end. As it is, they pay their taxes, and go out to war whenthey are bid, are thankful when they are left unmolested by theirgovernment, and sorry or angry when they feel themselvesoppressed; and there they end. It is owing to their ignorance ofpolitics being morals--i. e. matters of equal concern toall--that this truth is not made manifest in action in everycountry on the globe that has any government at all.
The same is the case of the unrepresented under governmentswhich are not called despotic. According to the principlesprofessed by the United States, there is there a rectification ofthis mighty error--a correction of this grand oversight. In thatself-governing nation, all are held to have an equal interest inthe principles of its institutions, and to be bound in equal dutyto watch their workings. Politics there are universal duty. Noneare exempted from obligation but the unrepresented; and they, intheory, are none. However various may be the tribes ofinhabitants in those States, whatever part of the world may havebeen their birth-place, or that of their fathers, however brokenmay be their language, however noble or servile theiremployments, however exalted or despised their state, all aredeclared to be bound together by equal political obligation, asfirmly as under any other law of personal or social duty. Thepresident, the senator, the governor, may take upon himself someadditional responsibility, as the physician and lawyer do inother departments of office; but they are under precisely thesame political obligation as the German settler, whose axe echoesthrough the lonely forest; and the Southern planter, who isoccupied with his hospitalities; and the New England merchant,whose thoughts are on the sea; and the Irishman, in his shanty onthe canal-bank; and the negro, hoeing cotton in the hot field, orbasking away his sabbath on the shore of the Mississippi. Genius,knowledge, wealth, may in other affairs set a man above hisfellows; but not in this. Weakness, ignorance, poverty may exempta man from other obligations; but not from this. The theory ofthe government of the United States has grasped and embodied themighty principle, that politics are morals; --that is, a matterof universal and equal concern. We shall have to see whether thisprinciple is fully acted out.
Implicated with this is the theory, that the majority will bein the right, both as to the choice of principles which are togovern particular cases, and the agents who are to work them.This theory, obviously just as it appears, as long as it isapplied to matters of universal and equal concern, cannot be setaside without overthrowing all with which it is involved. Weshall have to see, also, whether this principle is effectuallycarried out.
Implicated with this, again, is the principle that a mutable,or rather elastic form, must be given to every institution."The majority are in the right." Such is the theory.Few individuals of this majority can act for longer thantwo-score years and ten, few for so long. No one can suppose thathis successor will think or feel as he does, however strict maybe the regard of each to the fundamental principles which are toregulate his citizenship. It is absolutely necessary, to securepermanence to the recognition of those principles, that thereshould be liberty to change the form which contains them.Else, in the endless variety of human views and interests, thereis danger lest men, being prohibited from producing acorrespondence between the principles they recognise, and theforms they desire, should, because interdicted from outwardchange, gradually alter the spirit of their government. In such acase, men would be some time in discovering that the fair body oftheir constitution has become possessed, while they had supposedher inspired: and, to pass over the mischiefs which might happenduring, the period of her possession, the work of exorcism wouldbe difficult and perilous.
* Declaration of Independence.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeI, Part I, "Politics." London: Saunders and Otley,1837, pp. 1-9.
Forward to Society in America, Chapter I- Parties
Back to Society in America, Volume I,"Introduction."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index