SECTION III.SECTION III.
In England the idea of an American citizen is of one who isalways talking politics, canvassing, bustling about to makeproselytes abroad, buried in newspapers at home, and hurrying tovote on election days.
There is another side to the object. A learned professor of awestern college told me abundance of English news, but declaredhimself ignorant of everything that had passed in the homeportion of the political world. He never took any interest inpolitics. What would be the use of his disturbing himself? Howfar does one man's vote go? He does more good by showing himselfabove such affairs.
It was communicated to me that there are more modes ofpolitical action than one: and that, though this professor doesnot vote, he uses his utmost influence with the students of hiscollege, in favour of his own political opinions; and with entiresuccess. If this be true, the gentleman falls short of his dutyin one respect, and exceeds it in another.
A clergyman in the north was anxious to assure me thatelections are merely personal matters, and do not affect thehappiness of the people. It matters not to him, for instance, whois in office, and what party in politics is uppermost: life goeson the same to him. This gentleman had probably never heard ofthe old lady who said that she did not care what revolutionshappened, as long as she had her roast chicken, and her littlegame at cards. But that old lady did not live in a republic, orperhaps even she might have perceived that there would have beenno security for roast chickens and cards, if all were to neglectpolitical action but those who want political power and profit.In a democracy, every man is supposed to be his own security forlife and property: and, if a man devolves his political chargeupon others, he must lay his accounts for not being so well takencare of as he might be. So much for the selfish aspect of thecase;--the view which might have been presented, withillustrations, to the old lady, if she had happened to live in arepublic.
The clergyman ought to see further. He ought to see, in virtueof his office, how public morals must suffer under the neglect ofpublic duty by respectable men. If such men were to perform theduties of citizens as conscientiously as they do those ofhusbands, fathers, and pastors, and leave it to the knaves toneglect the duties of citizenship, the republic might go on aswell as a republic with knaves in it can go on. But if the caseis reversed,--if the knaves are eager to use their politicalrights for selfish purposes, and the conscientious in otherrespects are remiss in the duties of citizenship, the pastors mayalmost as well leave off preaching. All good pastoral influencewill be borne down by the spread of corruption. The clergy maypreach themselves hoarse to little purpose, if they live, andencourage others to live, in the avowed neglect of the first dutyof any one relation; and the exercise of the suffrage is thefirst duty of republican citizenship.
A naval officer, a man of an otherwise sound head and heart,told me, very coolly, that he had never voted more than twice inhis life. His defence, in answer or to my remonstrance, was, thathe had served his country in other ways. In as far as this mightbe meant to convey that he could not vote at New York when inIndia, the excuse must be admitted as valid but, if it was meantto apply to elections going on before his eyes, it was much thesame as if he had said, "there is no occasion for me to be agood father, because I have been a good son."
A member of Congress gave me instances of what would have beenthe modifications of certain public affairs, but for the apathyof the minority about the use of their suffrage. If citizensregulate their exertions by the probabilities of immediatesuccess, instead of by their faith in their own convictions, itis indeed no wonder if the rminority leave everything to theiradversaries; but this is not the way for men to show themselvesworthy of the possession of political rights. This is not the waythat society has advanced. This is not the way that security forlife and property has been obtained for those idlecitizens who are now leaving that security to the mercy of thosewhom they believe to be the enemies of society.
A public man told me that it would be a great point gained, ifevery citizen could be induced to vote, at least once a year. Sofar is it from being true that all Americans are the bustlingpoliticians the English have been apt to suppose. If suchpolitical bustle should be absurd, the actual apathy is somethingworse. If it were only borne in mind that rulers derive theirjust powers from the consent of the governed, surely allconscientious men would see the guilt of any man acquiescing inthe rule of governors whom he disapproves, by not having recordedhis dissent. Or, if he should be in the majority, the case is nobetter. He has omitted to bear his testimony to what he esteemsthe true principles of government. He has not appointed hisrulers; and, in as far as he accepts their protection, he takeswithout having given, he reaps without having sown; he depriveshis just rulers of a portion of the authority which is theirdue--of a portion of the consent of the governed.
There is another cause for the reluctance to vote which iscomplained of by the best friends of the people; but it is almosttoo humbling and painful to be discussed. Some are afraid tovote!
This happens not in the country, nor among the strength of thepopulation in the towns: but among the feeble aristocracy. Thereis not, in the United States, as with us, a system ofintimidation exercised by the rich over the poor. In the country,there are no landlords and tenants at will. In the towns, thetradesmen do not stand in need of the patronage of the rich.Though they vote by ballot, and any man who chooses it may votesecretly, (and many do upon occasion,) there is rarely any needof such protection. But there is no reason why the gentry, whomay be afraid of hurting one another's feelings, should not usetheir power of secret voting, rather than neglect the duty ofgiving their suffrage. If the educated and principled men of thecommunity, as they are esteemed, fall back into idleness andsilence, when the time comes for a struggle for principles, andthere is a danger of disappointing expectations, and hurtingfeelings, their country has little to thank them for. They arethe men from whom the open discharge of duty is looked for; theyare the men who should show that political obligation is aboveprivate regards. If they have not the virtue to do this, and takethe conseqnences, let them avail themselves of the secrecy of theballotbox, which in England is desired for the protection ofthose whom bad arrangements have made dependent for bread on therich and powerful. At all events, let them vote, or be asbamed toaccept the privileges of citizenship without having dischargedthe duties.
The fear of opinion sometimes takes the form of an almostinsane dread of responsibility. There are occasions when publicmen, unable to judge for themselves of particular classes ofcircumstances, are obliged to ask advice of their friends andsupporters. Happy he who obtains a full and true answer from anyone! The chances against this are in proportion to the importanceof the case. I knew of one such instance, the result of whichmore shall one is, I trust, now grievng over in his inmost heart.An eminent statesman was hesitating whether to offer himself as acandidate for a very high office. He requested the opinion andadvice of a number of gentlemen in public life, his supporters.All were of the same opinion; that he should not stand. No one ofthem chose to take the responsibility of telling him so. Some ofthem wrote ambiguous answers, hoping that he would infer thatthey thought ill of his chance. Others rather encouraged theenterprise. The illustrative details which might begiven,--showing the general uniformity, with particulardiversity, of the conduct of the advisers,--would be amusing ifthey were not too sad. Suffice it that no one, as far as I couldlearn, could get over his fear of responsibility so as to befaithful. They allowed their idol to make a fool of himself. Ifhe should henceforth be sunk in political scepticism, perhapsthese gentlemen may find that in shunning one kind ofresponsibility, they have incurred another, far heavier.
It is felt, and understood, in the United States, that theirnear future in politics is indiscernible. Odd, unexpectedcircumstances, determining the present, are perpetually turningup. Almost every man has his convictions as to what the state ofaffairs will be, in the gross, a century hence. Scarcely any manwill venture a conjecture as to what will have happened nextspring. This is the very condition, if the people could but seeit, for the exercise of faith in principles. With a dark andshifting near future, and a bright and fixed ultimate destiny,what is the true, the only wisdom? Not to pry into the fogs andthickets round about, or to stand still for fear of what may nextoccur in the path; but to look from Eden gate behind to heavengate before, and press on to the certain future. In his politicalas in his moral life, man should, in the depth of his ignoranceand the fallibility of his judgment, throw himself, in a fullsense of security, upon principles; and then he is safe frombeing depressed by opposition, or scared by uncertainty, ordepraved by responsibility.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeI, Part I, Chapter III, Section III - "Apathy inCitizenship." London: Saunders and Otley, 1837, pp. 154-162.
Forward to Society in America, Ch.III, Section IVI, - "Allegiance to Law."
Back to Society in America, ChapterIII, Section II- "Newspapers."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index