CHAPTER II. CHAPTER II.
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people."
Jefferson.
Though it be true that the principles of government are to bededuced more from experience of human nature than experience ofhuman governments, the institutions in which those principles areto be embodied must be infinitely modified by precedingcircumstances. Bentham must have forgotten this when he offered,at sixty-four, to codify for several of the United States, andalso for Russia. He proposed to introduce a new set of terms.These could not, from his want of local knowledge, have been veryspecific; and if general, what was society to do till the lawyershad done arguing? How could even a Solomon legislate, threethousand miles off, for a republic like that of Connecticut,which set out with taking its morals and politics by handfuls,out of Numbers and Deuteronomy ? Or for Virginia, rank withfeudal prejudices and methods? or for Delaware, with itsmonarchical martyr spirit? or for Louisiana, compounded of Spain,France, and America? Though at the time of the framing of theconstitution, the States bore a strong general resemblance intheir forms of government, endless minor differences existed,mainly arising from the different tenure on which they had beenheld under the English crown. Some had been provinces, governedby royal commissions, according to royal convenience. These wereNew Hampshire, New York, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia.Others had been under proprietory government; as Maryland, heldunder patent, by Lord Baltimore; and Pennsylvania and Delaware,held by William Penn. Others, again, were under chartergovernments; ruled and altogether disposed of by politicalcorporations. Such were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, andConnecticut. Within the memory of middle-aged men, the governorof New Hampshire used to travel in a coach and six, while thegovernor of the much more important Massachusetts went on ahorse, with his wife on a pillion. It is within the memory ofliving men how Massachusetts rose up in rejection of theimposition of a clergy by England; while the colonial law ofVirginia ordained parsons to be paid yearly six thousand weightof prime tobacco, in addition to marriage, burial, andbirth-fees; in which days, an unholy pastor, appointed by LordBaltimore, was seen to ride about with the church key in onehand, and a pistol in the other. It is absurd to suppose thatcommunitics, where wide differences of customs, prejudices, andmanners still exist, can be, or ought to be, brought into a stateof exact conformity of institutions. Diversities, not only of oldcustom, but of climate, productions and genealogy, forbid it; andreason does not require it. That institutions should harmonisewith the same first principles, is all that is requisite. Some,who would not go so far as to offer to codify for countries wherethey have not set their foot, are yet apt to ask the use of oneor another institution, to which the Americans seem to beunreasonably attached. It is a sufficient general answer thatinstitutions are rarely sudden and complete inventions. They haveusually an historical origin, even when renovated by revolution.Their protracted existence, and the attachment of the people tothem are strong presumptions of their having some use. If theirpurposes can be better attained in another way, they will surelybe modified. If they are the result of compromise, they will beabolished, according to the invariable law by which expediencyfinally succumbs to principle. That this will be the fate ofcertain of the United States' institutions which no one yetdreams of touching, and few dare to analyze, has been clearlyforeseen, for forty years past, by many of the most upright andable men in the country. Some of them entertain an agonizingalarm at the prospect of change. Others, more reasonably, trustthat, where no large pecuniary interests are at stake, the workof rectifying may very quietly and safely succeed that ofreconciling: and the majority have no idea of the changes whichtheir own hands, or their children's, will have to effect. Thegradual ripening for change may be an advantage in more respectsthan one. Political changes which are the result of fullconviction in a free people, are pretty sure to be safe. Time isalso allowed, meanwhile, for men to practice their new lesson ofseparating the idea of revolution from the horrors which have nomore natural connexion with it than burning at the stake has withthe firm grasp of speculative truth.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeI, Part I, Chapter II - "Appartus of Government."London: Saunders and Otley, 1837, pp. 42-45.
Forward to Society in America, Ch. II,Section I, "The General Government."
Back to Society in America, Chapter I -"Parties."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index