CHAPTER I. CHAPTER I.
"For these are the men that, when they have played their parts, and had their exits, must step out, and give the moral of their scenes, and deliver unto posterity an inventory of their virtues and vices."
Sir Thomas Browne.
The first gentleman who greeted me on my arrival in the UnitedStates, a few minutes after I had landed, informed me withoutdelay, that I had arrived at an unhappy crisis; that theinstitutions of the country would be in ruins before my return toEngland; that the levelling spirit was desolating society; andthat the United States were on the verge of a military despotism.This was so very like what I had been accustomed to hear at home,from time to time, since my childhood, that I was not quite somoch alarmed as I might have been without such prior experience.It was amusing too to find America so veritably the daughter ofEngland.
I looked around me carefully, in all my travels, till Ireached Washington, but could see no signs of despotism; evenless of military. Except the officers and cadets at West Point,and some militia on a training day at Saugerties, higher up onthe Hudson, I saw nothing that could be called military; andofficers, cadets, and militia, appeared all perfectly innocent ofany design to seize upon the government. At Washington, Iventured to ask an explanation from one of the most honouredstatesmen now living; who told me, with a smile, that the countryhad been in "a crisis" for fifty years past; and wouldbe for fifty years to come.
This information was my comfort, from day to day, till Ibecame sufficiently acquainted with the country to need suchsupport no longer. Mournful predictions, like that I have quoted,were made so often, that it was easy to learn how theyoriginated.
In the United States, as elsewhere, there are, and have alwaysbeen, two parties in politics, whom it is difficult todistinguish on paper, by a statement of their principles, butwhose course of action may, in any given case, be prettyconfidently anticipated. It is remarkable how nearly theirpositive statements of political doctrine agree, while theydiffer in almost every possible application of their commonprinciples. Close and continued observation of their agreementsand differences is necessary before the British traveller canfully comprehend their mutual relation. In England, thedifferences of parties are so broad,--between these who wouldhave the people governed for the convenience of their rulers;those who would have the many governed, for their good, by thewill of the few; and those who would have the people governthemselves;--that it is, for some time, difficult to comprehendhow there should be party differences as wide in a country wherethe first principle of government is that the people are togovern themselves. The case, however, becomes clear in time: and,amidst a half century of "crises," the same order andsequence become discernible which run through the whole course ofhuman affairs.
As long as men continue as differently organized as they noware, there will be two parties under every government. Even iftheir outward fortunes could be absolutely equalised, there wouldbe, from individual constitution alone, an aristocracy and ademocracy in every land. The fearful by nature would compose anaristocracy, the hopeful by nature a democracy, were all othercauses of divergence done away. When to theseconstitutional differences are added all those outwardcircumstances which go to increase the fear and the hope, themutual misunderstandings of parties are no longer to be wonderedat. Men who have gained wealth, whose hope is fulfilled, and whofear loss by change, are naturally of the aristocraticclass. So are men of learning, who, unconsciously identifyinglearning and wisdom, fear the elevation of the ignorant to astation like their own. So are men of talent, who, having gainedthe power which is the fit recompense of achievement, dread thehaving to yield it to numbers instead of desert. So are many morewho feel the almost universal fear of having to part witheducational prejudices, with doctrines with which honouredteachers nourished the pride of youth, and prepossessions inwovenwith all that has been to them most pure, lofty, and graceful.Out of these a large aristocratic class must everywhere beformed.
Out of the hopeful,--the rising, not the risen,-- theaspiring, not the satisfied,--must a still larger class beeverywhere formed. It will include all who have most to gain andleast to lose; and most of those who, in the present state ofeducation, have gained their knowledge from actual life, ratherthan, or as well as, from books. It will include the adventurersof society, and also the philanthropists. It will include,moreover,--an accession small in number, but inestimable inpower,-- the men of genius. It is characteristic of genius to behopeful and aspiring. It is characteristic of genius to break upthe artificial arrangements of conventionalism, and to viewmankind in true perspective, in their gradations of inherentrather than of adventitious worth. Genius is thereforeessentially democratic, and has always been so, whatever titlesits gifted ones may have worn, or on whatever subjects they mayhave exercised their gifts. To whatever extent men of genius havebeen aristocratic, they have been so in spite of their genius,not in consistency with it. The instances are so few, and theirdeviations from the democratic principle so small, that men ofgenius must be considered as included in the democratic class.
Genius being rare, and its claims but tardily allowed by thosewho have attained greatness by other means, it seems as if theweight of influence possessed by the aristocratic party,--by thatparty which, generally speaking, includes the wealth, learning,and talents of the country,--must overpower all opposition. Ifthis is found not to be the case, if it be found that thedemocratic party has achieved everything that has been achieveclsince the United States' constitution began to work, it is nowonder that there is panic in many hearts, and that I heard fromso many tongues of the desolations of the "levellingspirit," and the approaching will of political institutions.
These classes may be distinguished in another way. Thedescription which Jefferson gave of the federal and republicanparties of 1799 applies to the federal and democratic parties ofthis day, and to the aristocratic and democratic parties of everytime and country. "One," says Jefferson, "fearsmost the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness ofrulers independent of thern."
There is much reason in both these fears. The unreasonablenessof party lies in entertaining the one fear, and not the other. Noargument is needed to prove that rulers are prone to selfishnessand narrowness of views: and no one can have witnessed theinjuries that the poor suffer in old countries,--the education ofhardship and insult that furnishes them with their only knowledgeof the highest classes, without being convinced that theirignorance is to be feared;--their ignorance, not so much of booksas of liberty and law. In old countries, the question remainsopen whether the many should, on account of their ignorance, bekept still in a state of political servitude, as some declare; orwhether they should be gradually prepared for political freedom,as others think, by an amelioration of their condition, and bybeing educated in schools; or whether, as yet others maintain,the exercise of political rights and duties be not the onlypossible political education. In the New World, no such questionremains to be debated. It has no large, degraded, injured,dangerous (white) class who can afford the slightest presence fora panic-cry about agrarianism. Throughout the prodigious expanseof that country, I saw no poor men, except a fewintemperate ones. I saw some very poor women; butGod and man know that the time has not come for women to maketheir injuries even heard of. I saw no beggars but twoprofessional ones, who are making their fortunes in the streetsof Washington. I saw no table spread, in the lowest order ofhouses, that had not meat and bread on it. Every factory childcarries its umbrella; and pig-drivers wear spectacles. With theexception of the foreign paupers on the seaboard, and those whoare steeped in sensual vice, neither of which classes can bepolitically dangerous, there are none who have not the sameinterest in the security of property as the richest merchant ofSalem, or planter of Louisiana. Whether the less wealthy classwill not be the first to draw out from reason and experience thetrue philosophy of property, is another question. All we have todo with now is their equal interest with their richer neighboursin the security of property, in the present state of society. Lawand order are as important to the man who holds land for thesubsistence of his family, or who earns wages that he may haveland of his own to die upon, as to any member of the president'scabinet.
Nor is there much more to fear from the ignorance of the bulkof the people in the United States, than from their poverty. Itis too true that there is much ignorance; so much as to be anever-present peril. Though, as a whole, the nation is, probably,better informed than any other entire nation, it cannot be deniedthat their knowledge is far inferior to what their safety andtheir virtue require. But whose ignorance is it? Andignorance of what ? If the professors of collegeshave book-knowledge, which the owner of a log-house has not; theowner of a log-house has very often, as I can testify, aknowledge of natural law, political rights, and economical fact,which the college-professor has not. I often longed to confrontsome of each class, to see whether there was any common ground onwhich they could meet. If not, the one might bring the charge ofignorance as justly as the other. If a common ground could bediscovered, it would have been in their equal relation to thegovernmont under which they live: in which case, the naturalconclusion would be, that each understood his own interests best,and neither could assume superiority over the other. Theparticular ignorance of the countryman may expose him to beflattered and cheated by an oratorical office-seeker, or adishonest newspaper. But, on the other hand, the professor's wantof knowledge of the actual affairs of the many, and hiseducational biases, are just as likely to cause him to votecontrary to the public interest. No one who has observed societyin America will question the existence or the evil of ignorancethere: but neither will he question that such real knowledge asthey have is pretty fairly shared among them.
I travelled by wagon, with a party of friends, in the interiorof Ohio. Our driver must be a man of great and various knowledge,if he questions all strangers as he did us, and obtains ascopious answers. He told us where and how he lived, of his ninechildren, of his literary daughters, and the pains he was at toget books for them; and of his hopes from his girl of fourteen,who writes poetry, which he keeps a secret, lest she should bespoiled. He told us that he seldom lets his fingers touch anovel, because the consequence always is that his business standsstill till the novel is finished; "and that doesn'tsuit." He recited to us, Pope's "Happy the man whosewish and care," &c. saying that it suited his ideaexactly. He asked both the ladies present whether they hadwritten a book. Both had; and he carried away the titles, that hemight buy the books for his daughters. This man is fully informedof the value of the Union, as we had reason to perceive; and itis difficult to see why he is not as fit as any other man tochoose the representatives of his interests. Yet, here is aspecimen of his conversation with one of the ladies of the party.
"Was the book that you wrote on natural philosophy,madam?"
"No; I know nothing about natural philosophy."
"Hum! Because one lady has done that pretty well:--hitit!--Miss Porter, you know."
"What Miss Porter ?"
"She that wrote 'Thaddeus of Warsaw,' you know. She didit pretty well there."
As an antagonist case, take the wailings of a gentleman ofvery distinguished station in a highly aristocratic section ofsociety;--wailings over the extent of the suffrage.
"What an enormity it is that such a man as Judge -----,there, should stand on no higher level in politics than the manthat grooms his horse!"
"Why should he? I suppose they have both got all theywant,--full representation: and they thus bear precisely the samerelation to the government."
"No; the judge seldom votes, because of his office: whilehis groom can, perhaps, carry nineteen men to vote as he pleases.It is monstrous!"
"It seems monstrous that the judge should omit hispolitical duty for the sake of his office; and also that nineteenmen should be led by one. But limiting the suffrage would notmend the matter. Would it not do better to teach all the partiestheir duty?"
Let who will choose between the wagon-driver and the scholar.Each will vote according to his own views; and the event,--theultimate majority, --will prove which is so far the wiser.
The vagueness of the antagonism between the two parties is forsome time perplexing to the traveller in America; and he does notknow whether to be most amazed or amused at the apparenttriviality of the circumstances which arouse the strongest partyemotions. After a while, a body comes out of the mystery, and hegrasps a substantial cause of dissension. From the day when thefirst constitution was formed, there have been alarmists, whotalk of a "crisis:" and from the day when the secondbegan its operations, the alarm has, very naturally, taken itssubject matter from the failure of the first. The first generalgovernment came to a stand through weakness. The entire nationkept itself in order till a new one was formed and set to work.As soon as the danger was over, and the nation proved, by thelast possible test, duly convinced of the advantages of publicorder, the timid party took fright lest the general governmentshould still not be strong enough; and this tendency, of course,set the hopeful party to watch lest it should be made too strong.The panic and antagonism were at their height in 1799.* A fearfulcollision of parties took place, which ended in the establishmentof the hopeful policy, which has continued, with fewinterruptions, since. The executive patronage was retrenched,taxes were taken off, the people were re-assured, and all is, asyet, safe. While the leaders of the old federal party retired totheir Essex junto, and elsewhere, to sigh for monarchy, and yearntowards England, the greater number threw off their fears, andjoined the republican party. There are now very few left toprofess the politics of the old federalists. I met with only twowho openly avowed their desire for a monarchy; and not many morewho prophesied one. But there still is a federal party, and thereever will be. It is as inevitable that there will be always somewho will fear the too great strength of the state governments, asthat there will be many who will have the same fear about thegeneral government. Instead of seeing in this any cause fordismay, or even regret, the impartial observer will recognise inthis mutual watchfulness the best security that the case admitsof for the general and state governments preserving their duerelation to one another. No government ever yet worked both welland indisputably. A pure despotism works (apparently)indisputably; but the bulk of its subjects will not allow that itworks well, while it wrings their heads from their shoulders, ortheir earnings from their hands. The government of the UnitedStates is disputed at every step of its workings: but the bulk ofthe people declare that it works well, while every man is his ownsecurity for his life and property.
The extreme panic of the old federal party is accounted for,and almost justified, when we remember, not only that thecommerce of England had penetrated every part of the country, andthat great pecuniary interests were therefore everywhere supposedto be at stake; but that republicanism, like that which nowexists in America, was a thing unheard of--an idea onlyhalf-developed in the minds of those who were to live under it.Wisdom may spring, full-formed and accomplished, from the head ofa god, but not from the brains of men. The Americans of theRevolution looked round upon the republics of the world, testedthem by the principles of human nature, found them republican innothing but the name, and produced something more democratic thanany of them; but not democratic enough for the circumstanceswhich were in the course of arising. They saw that in Holland thepeople had nothing to do with the erection of the supreme power;that in Poland (which was called a republic in their day) thepeople were oppressed by an incubus of monarchy and aristocracy,at once, in their most aggravated forms; and that in Venice asmall body of hereditary nobles exercised a stern sway. Theyplanned something far transcending in democracy any republic yetheard of; and they are not to be wondered at, or blamed, if, whentheir work was done, they feared they had gone too far. They haddone much in preparing the way for the second birth of theirrepublic in 1789, and for a third in 1801, when the republicanscame into power; and from which date, free government in theUnited States may be said to have started on its course.
A remarkable sign of those times remains on record, whichshows how different the state of feeling and opinion was thenfrom any that could now prevail among a large and honourable bodyin the republic. The society of the Cincinnati, an association ofofficers of the revolutionary army, and other honourable persons,ordered their proceedings in a manner totally inconsistent withthe first principles of republicanism; having secretcorrespondences, decking themselves with an order, which was tobe hereditary, drawing a line of distinction between military andother citizens, and uniting in a secret bond the chiefs of thefirst families of the respective States. Such an association,formed on the model of some which might be more or less necessaryor convenient in the monarchies of the old world, could not bealloued to exist in its feudal form in the young republic; and,accordingly, the hereditary principle, and the power of adoptinghonorary members, were relinquished; and the society is heard ofno more. It has had its use in showing how the minds of tbeearlier republicans were imbued with monarchical prepossessions,and how large is the reasonable allowance which must be made forthe apprehensions of men, who, having gone further in democracythan any who had preceded them, were destined to see othersoutstrip themselves. Adams, Hamilton, Washington! what names arethese! Yet Adams in those days believed the English constitutionwould be perfect, if some defects and abuses were rernedied.Hamilton believed it would be impracticable, if such alterationswere made; and that, in its then existing state, it was the verybest government that had ever been devised. Washington wasabsolutely republican in his principles, but did not enjoy thestrong faith, the entire trust in the people, which is theattendant privilege of those principles. Such men, pressed outfrom among the multitude by the strong force of emergency, provedthemselves worthy of their mission of national redemption; but,though we may now be unable to single out any who, in thesecomparatively quiet times, can be measured against them, we arenot thence to conclude that society, as a wbole, has notadvanced; and that a policy which would have appeared dangerousto them, may not be, at present, safe and reasonable.
Advantageous, therefore, as it may be, that the presentfederal party should be perpetually on the watch against theencroachments of the state governments,--useful as theirincessant recurrence to the first practices, as well asprinciples, of the constitution may be,--it would be for theircomfort to remermber, that the elasticity of their institutionsis a perpetual safeguard; and, also, that the silent influence ofthe federal head of their republics has a sedative effect whichits framers themselves did not anticipate. If they compare thefickleness and turbulence of very small republics,--Rhode Island,for instance,--with the tranquillity of the largest, or of theconfederated number, it is obvious that the existence of afederal head keeps down more quarrels than ever appear.
When the views of the present apprehensive federal party areclosely looked into, they appear to be inconsistent with one ormore of the primary principles of the constitution which we havestated. "The majority are right." Any fears of themajority are inconsistent with this maxim, and were always feltby me to be so, from the time I entered the country till I leftit.
One sunny October morning I was taking a drive, with my party,along the shores of the pretty Owasco Lake, in New York state,and conversing on the condition of the country with a gentlemanwho thought the political prospect less bright than thelandscape. I had been less than three weeks in the country, andwas in a state of something like awe at the prevalence of, notonly external competence, but intellectual ability. The strikingeffect upon a stranger of witnessing, for the first time, theabsence of poverty, of gross ignorance, of all servility, of allinsolence of manner, cannot be exaggerated in description. I hadseen every man in the towns an independent citizen; every man inthe country a land-owner. I had seen that the villages hadtheir newspapers, the factory girls their libraries. I hadwitnessed the controversies between candidates for office on somedifficult subjects, of which the people were to be the judges.With all these things in my mind, and with every evidence ofprosperity about me in the comfortable homesteads which everyturn in the road, and every reach of the lake, brought into view,I was thrown into a painful amazement by being told that thegrand question of the time was "whether the people should beencouraged to govern themselves, or whether the wise should savethem from themselves." The confusion of inconsistencies washere so great as to defy argument: the patronage amongequals that was implied; the assumption as to who were the wise;and the conclusion that all the rest must be foolish. This onesentence seemed to be the most extraordinary combination thatcould proceed from the lips of a republican.
The expressions of fear vary according to the pursuits, orhabits of mind of those who entertain them: but all areinconsistent with the theory that the majority are right. Onefears the influence in the national councils of the "Tartarpopulation" of the west, observing that men retrograde incivilisation when thinly settled in a fruitful country. But therepresentatives from these regions will be few while they arethinly settled, and will be in the minority when in the wrong.When these representatives become numerous, from the thicksettlement of those regions, their character will have ceased tobecome Tartar-like and formidable: even supposing that aTartar-like character could co-exist with the commerce of theMississippi. Another tells me that the State has been, again andagain, "on a lee shore, and a flaw has blown it off, andpostponed the danger; but this cannot go on for ever." Thefact here is true; and it would seem to lead to a directlycontrary inference. "The flaw" is the will of themajority, which might be better indicated by a figure ofsomething more stable. "The majority is right." It hasthus far preserved the safety of the state; and this is the bestground for supposing that it will continue to be a safeguard.
One of the most painful apprehensions seems to be that thepoorer will heavily tax the richer members of society; the richbeing always a small class. If it be true, as all parties appearto suppose, that rulers in general are prone to use their powerfor selfish purposes, there remains the alternative, whether thepoor shall over-tax the rich, or whether the rich shall over-taxthe poor: and, if one of these evils were necessary, few woulddoubt which would be the least. But the danger appears muchdiminished on the consideration that, in the country under ournotice, there are not, nor are likely to be, the wide differencesin property which exist in old countries. There is no class ofhereditary rich or poor. Few are very wealthy; few are poor; andevery man has a fair chance of being rich. No such unequaltaxation has yet been ordained by the sovereign people; nor doesthere appear to be any danger of it, while the total amount oftaxation is so very small as in the United States, and theinterest that every one has in the protection of property is sogreat. A friend in the South, while eulogizing to me the state ofsociety there, spoke with compassion of his northern fellowcitizens, who were exposed to the risks of "a perpetualstruggle between pauperism and property." To which anorthern friend replied, that it is true that there is aperpetual struggle everywhere between pauperism andproperty. The question is, which succeeds. In the United States,the prospect is that each will succeed. Paupers may obtain whatthey want, and proprietors will keep that which they have. As amere matter of convenience, it is shorter and easier to obtainproperty by enterprise and labour in the United States, than bypulling down the wealthy. Even the most desponding do notconsider the case as very urgent, at present. I asked one of mywealthy friends, who was predict ing that in thirty years hischildren would be living under a despotism, why he did notremove. "Where," said he, with a countenance ofperplexity, "could I be better off?"--which appeared tome a truly reasonable question.
In a country, the fundamental principle of whose politics is,that its "rulers derive their just powers from the consentof the governed," it is clear that there can be no narrowingof the suffrage. However earnestly some may desire this, no onehopes it. But it does not follow that the apprehensive minorityhas nothing left but discontent. The enlightenment of societyremains not only matter for hope, but for achievement. Theprudent speak of the benefits of education as a matter of policy,while the philanthropic promote it as a matter of justice.Security of person and property follows naturally upon aknowledge of rights. However the aristocracy of wealth, learning,and talent may differ among themselves, as to what is the mostvaluable kind of knowledge, all will agree that every kindwill strengthen the bonds of society. In this direction must thearistocracy work for their own security. If they sufficientlyprovide the means of knowledge to the community, they may dismisstheir fears, and rest assured that the great theory of theirgovernment will bear any test; and that "the majority willbe in the right."
If the fears of the aristocracy are inconsistent with thetheory of the government under which they live, so is much of thepractice of the democracy. Their hopefulness is reasonable; theirreliance on the majority is reasonable. But there are evilsattendant on their practice of their true theories which mayaccount for the propounding of worse theories by their opponents.
Learning by experience is slow work. However sure it may be,it is slow; and great is the faith and patience required by menwho are in advance of a nation on a point which they feel thatthey could carry, if they had not to wait the pleasure of themajority. Though the majority be right in respect of the whole ofpolitics, there is scarcely a sensible man who may not be more inthe right than the majority with regard to some one point; and noallowance can be too great for the perpetual discouragement hencearising. The majority eventually wills the best; but, in thepresent imperfection of knowledge, the will is long in exhibitingitself; and the ultimate demonstration often crowns a series ofmistakes and failures. From this fact arises the complaint ofmany federalists that the democratic party is apt to adopt theirmeasures, after railing both at those measures, and at the menwho framed them. This is often true: and it is true that, if thepeople had only had the requisite knowledge, they would have donewisely to have accepted good measures from the beginning, withoutany railing at all. But the knowledge was wanting. The next bestthing that can happen is, that which does happen: that the peoplelearn, and act upon their learning. If they are not wise enoughto adopt a good measure at first, it would be no improvement ofthe ease that they should be too obstinate to accept it at last.The case proves only that out of ignorance come knowledge,conviction, and action; and the majority is ultimately in theright. Whenever there is less of ignorance to begin with, therewill be less of the railing, which is childish enough, whether asa mere imputation, or as a reality.
The great theory presumes that the majority not only will thebest measures, but choose the best men. This is far from beingtrue in practice. In no respect, perhaps, are the people morebehind their theory than in this. The noble set of publicservants with which the people were blessed in theirrevolutionary period seems to have inspired them at first with asomewhat romantic faith in men who profess strong attachment towhatever has been erected into a glory of the nation; and, fromthat time to this, the federal party has, from causes which willbe hereafter explained, furnished a far superior set of men tothe public service than the democratic party. I found this factalmost universally admitted by the wisest adherents of democracy;and out of it has arisen the mournful question, whether an honestman with false political principles be not more dangerous as aruler than an unscrupulous man with true political principles. Ihave heard the case put thus: "There is not yet asufficiency of real friends of the people willing to be theirservants. They must take either a somewhat better set of menwhose politics they disapprove, or a somewhat worse set of men tomake tools of. They take the tools, use them, and throw themaway."
This is true; and a melancholy truth it is; since it iscertain that whenever the people shall pertinaciously requirehonest servants, and take due pains to ascertain their honesty,true men will be forthcoming. Under God's providence, the worknever waits for the workman.
This fact, however, has one side as bright as the other isdark. It is certain that many corrupt public servants aresupported under the belief that they are good and great men. Noone can have attended assiduously on the course of public affairsat Washington, and afterwards listened to conversation in thestages, without being convinced of this. As soon as the mistakeis discovered, it is rectified. Retribution often comes soonerthan it could have been looked for. Though it be long delayed,the remedy is ultimately secure. Every corrupt faction breaks up,sooner or later, and character is revealed: the people let downtheir favourite, to hide his head, or continue to show his face,as may best suit his convenience; and forthwith choose a betterman; or one believed to be better. In such cases, the evil liesin ignorance-- a temporary evil; while the principle ofrectification may work, for aught we can see, eternally.
Two considerations,--one of fact, another of inference,--mayreassure those who are discouraged by these discrepancies betweenthe theories of the United States' government, and the pracriceof the democratic party, with regard to both measures and men.The Americans are practically acquainted with the old proverb,"What is every body's business is nobody's business."No man stirs first against an abuse which is no more his thanother people's. The abuse goes on till it begins to overbear lawand liberty. Then the multitude arises, in the strength of thelaw, and crushes the abuse. Sufficient confirmation of this willoccur to any one who has known the State histories of the Unionfor the last twenty years, and will not be wholly contradicted bythe condition of certain affairs there which now present a badaspect. Past experience sanctions the hope that when these badaffairs have grown a little worse, they will be suddenly andcompletely redressed. Illustrations in abundance are at hand.
Lotteries were formerly a great inducement to gaming inMassachusetts. Prudent fathers warned their sons againstlotteries; employers warned their servants; clergymen warnedtheir flocks. Tracts, denouncing lotteries, were circulated; mucheloquence was expended,--not in vain, though all sober peoplewere alreacly convinced, and weak people were still unable toresist the seduction. At length, a young man drowned hiinself. Adisappointment in a lottery was found to be the cause. A thrillof horror ran through the community. Every man helped to carryhis horror of lotteries into the legislature; and their abolitionfollowed in a trice.
Freemasonry was once popular in the United States; and no oneseemed to think any harm of it, though, when examined, it clearlyappears an institutiou incompatible with true republicanism. Theaccount given of it by some friends of mine, formerly masons, is,that it is utterly puerile in itself; that it may be dignified,under a despotism, by an application to foreign objects, but thatit is purely mischievous in a republic. Its object, of course, ispower. It can have no other; and ought not to have this, wherethe making of the laws is the office of the people. Its interiorobligations are also violations of the democratic principle. Allthis was as true of masonry twelve years ago as it is now; butmasonry was allowed to spread far and wide. One Morgan, afreemason, living in the western part of the state of New York,did a remarkable deed, for which various motives are assigned. Hewrote a book in exposure of masonry, its facts and tendencies.When the first part was printed and secured, some masons brokeinto the printing-office where it was deposited, and destroyed asmuch of the work as they could lay hold of. Being partly foiled,they bethought themselves of stopping the work by carrying offthe author. He was arrested for a trifling debt, (probablyfictitious,) conveyed hastily to a magistrate, some miles off,who committed him for want of bail. The ostensible creditorarrived at the jail, in the middle of the night, and let him out;four or five men put him into a carriage, which made for theCanada frontier. On landing him on British ground, the masonsthere refused to have any concern in a matter which hadgone so far, and Morgan was shut up in the fort at Niagaravillage, where the Niagara river flows into Lake Ontario. Therehe was fed and guarded for two days. Thus far, the testimony isexpress; and concerning the succeeding circumstances there is noreasonable doubt. He was put into a boat, carried out into themiddle of the river, and thrown in, with a stone tied to hisneck. For four years, there were attempts to bring theconspirators to justice; but little was done. The lodgessubscribed funds to carry the actual murderers out of thecountry. Sheriffs, jurymen, constables, all omitted their dutywith regard to the rest. The people were roused to action byfinding the law thus overawed. Anti-masonic societies wereformed. Massachusetts and other States passed laws againstextra-judicial oaths. In such States, the lodges can make no newmembers, and are becoming deserted by the old. The anti-masonicparty flourishes, having a great principle as its basis. It hasthe control in a few States, and powerful influence in others.Morgan's disclosures have been carried on by other hands. A badinstitution is overthrown. The people have learned an importantlesson; and they have gone through an honourable piece ofdiscipline in making a stand for the law, which is the life oftheir body politic.
Thus end, and thus, we may trust, will end the mistakes of thepeople, whose professed interest is in a wise self-government.Some worse institutions even than masonry remain to be cast out.The law has been again overawed; not once, but many times; andthe eyes of the world are on the people of the United States, tosee what they will do. The world is watching to discover whetherthey are still sensible of the sacred value of unviolated law;whether they are examining who it is that threatens and overbearsthe law, and why; and whether they are proceeding towards thereestablishment of the peace and security of their wholecommunity, by resolutely rooting out from among theirinstitutions every one which will not bear the test of the firstprinciples of the whole.
The other ground of hope of which I spoke as beinginferential, arises out of the imaginative political character ofthe Americans. They have not yet grown old in the ways of theworld. Their immediate fathers have done such a deed as the worldnever saw; and the children have not yet passed out of theintoxication of success. With far less of vanity and presumptionthan might have been looked for from their youth among thenations, with an extraordinary amount of shrewdness and practicaltalent shared among individuals, the American people are asimaginative as any nation I happen to have heard or read of. Theyreminded me every day of the Irish. The frank, confidingcharacter of their private intercourses, the generous nature oftheir mutual services, the quickness and dexterity of theirdoings, their fertility of resource, their proneness to be runaway with by a notion, into any extreme of absurdity-- in allthis, and in everything but their deficiency of moralindependence, (for which a difference of circurnstances willfully account,) they resemble the Irish. I regard the Americanpeople as a great embryo poet: now moody, now wild, but bringingout results of absolute good sense: restless and wayward inaction, but with deep peace at his heart: exulting that he hascaught the true aspect of things past, and at the depth offuturity which lies before him, wherein to create something somagnificent as the world has scarcely begun to dream of. There isthe strongest hope of a nation that is capable of being possessedwith an idea; and this kind of possession has been thepeculiarity of the Americans from their first day of nationalexistence till now. Their first idea was loftier than some whichhave succeeded; but they have never lost sight of the first. Itremains to be, at intervals, apprehended anew; and whenever thetime shall arrive, which cannot but arrive, when the nation shallbe so fully possessed of the complete idea as by a moralnecessity to act it out, they will be as far superior to nationswhich act upon the experience and expediency of their time as thegreat poet is superior to common men.
This time is yet very far distant; and the American peoplehave not only much to learn, and a painful discipline to endure,but some disgraceful faults to repent of and amend. They mustgive a perpetual and earnest heed to one point; to cherish theirhigh democratic hope, their faith in man. The older they grow,the more must they "reverence the dreams of theiryouth." They must eschew the folly and profaneness soprevalent in the old world, of exalting man, abstractedly andindividually, as a piece of God's creation, and despising men inthe mass. The statesman in a London theatre feels his heart in atumult, while a deep amen echoes through its chambers at Hamlet'sadoration of humanity; but not the less, when he goes home, doeshe speak slightingly, compassionately, or protectingly of themasses, the population, the canaille. He is awestruck with thegrandeur of an indivithlal spirit; but feels nothing of thegrandeur of a congregated million of like spirits, because theyhappen to be far off. This proves nothing but theshort-sightedness of such a man. Such shortness of sight afflictssome of the wisest and best men in the new world. I know of onewho regards with a humble and religious reverence the three orfour spirits which have their habitation under his roof, andclose at hand; who begins to doubt and question, in the face offar stronger outward evidence of good, persons who are a hundredmiles off; and has scarcely any faith left for those who happento be over the sea. The true democratic hope cannot coexist withsuch distrust. Its basis is the unmeasured scope of humanity; andits rationale the truth, applicable alike to individuals andnations, that men are what they are taken for granted to be."Countrymen," cries Brutus, dying,
"My heart doth joy that yet in all my life,
I found no man but he was true to me."
The philosophy of this fact is clear; it followed of coursefrom Brutus always supposing that men were true. Whenever theAmericans, or any other people, shall make integrity their rule,their criterion, their invariable supposition, the firstprinciples of political philosophy will be fairly acted out, andthe high democratic hope will be its own justification.
* Jefferson writes, September 1798 "The most long-sightedpolitician could not seven years ago have imagined that thepeople of this wide extended country could have been enveloped insuch delusion and made so much afraid of themselves and their ownpower, as to surrender it spontaneously to those who aremanoeuvring them into a form of government, the principalbranches of which may be beyond their control."
Again, March 1801:-- "You have understood that therevolutionary movements in Europe had, by industry and artifice,been wrought into objects of terror in this country, and hadreally involved a great portion of our well-meaning citizens in apanic which was perfectly unaccountable, and during theprevalence of which tbey were led to support measures the mostinsane. They are now pretty thoroughly recovered from it, andsensible of the mischief which was done, and preparing to hedone, had their minds continued a little longer under tbatderangement. The recovery bids fair to be complete, and toobliterate entirely the line of party division, which had been sostrongly drawn."--Jefferson's Correspondence, voliii., pp 401, 457.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeI, Part I, Chapter I - "Parties." London: Saunders andOtley, 1837, pp. 10-41.
Forward to Society in America, ChapterII - "Appartus of Government."
Back to Society in America, Part I,"Politics."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index