2       /    1 IT:'
THE
AMERICAN RkPUBLIC:
CONSTITUTION, TENDENCIES, AND DESTINY.
BY
O. A. BROWNSON, LL.D.
NEW YORK:
P. O'SHEA,  104 BLEECKER  STREET.
1866.
lrS 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865,
BY P. O'SHEA,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York.
4
~
I
-Ji/
I"' 8
i3! / 
TO THE
HON. GEORGE BANCROFT,
THE ERUDITE, PHILOSOPHICAL, AND ELOQUENT
RistoTrin of tt MnittB Ztatts,
THIS FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO SET FORTH THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERN  MENT, AND TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,
IN MEMORY OF OLD FRIENDSHIP, AND AS A
SLIGHT HOMAGE TO GENIUS, ABILITY,
PATRIOTISM, PRIVATE WORTH,
AND PUBLIC SERVICE,
BY THE AUTHOR. 
4 1 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.                PAG.
ILTR OD U CTIOV...................................................... 1
CHAPTER II.
G OVERYXfE-T...................................................... 15
CHAPTER III.
ORIGIN OF GOVERXENT.......................... 26
CHAPTER IV.
ORIGIV OF GO VE-RN.ENT-Continued............................ 43
CHAPTER V.
OPR 1I,N OPF GO EXET-Continued............................1
CHAPTER VL
OIGI.YFr OF O VER.EVT-Concluded..............................106
CHAPTER VII.
CONSTITUTION OF GO VER1N''E.VT............................... 188 
vi                   CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.                   PAs
OONSTITUTION OF GO FVERD fET- Conluded.................... 166
CHAPTER  IX.
THE UNITED STATES................................................ 192
CIIAPTER X.
cOOsTITUTION OF THE u7ITED STATES......................... 218
CHAPTER XI.
THE CONSTITUTION-Contiued...................................... 244
CHAPTER XII.
,SECEBI0ON............................................................. 277
CHAPTER XIII.
l?ECO1STR UCTIO.................................................... 309
CHAPTER XIV.
POLITIGAL TENDECIES............................................ 848
CHAPTER XV.
DESTINY-POLITIC AL.~D RELIGIO US........................... 892 
PREFACE.
IL the volume which, with much diffidence, is
here offered to the public, I have given, as far as
I have considered it worth giving, my whole
thought in a connected form on the nature, necessity, extent, authority, origin, ground, and
constitution of government, and the unity, nationality, constitution, tendencies, and destiny
of the American Republic. Many of the points
treated have been from time to time discussed or
touched upon, and many of the views have been
presented, in my previous writings; but this
work is newly and independently written from
beginning to end, and is as complete on the
topics treated as I have been able to make it.
I have taken nothing bodily from my previous
essays, but I have used their thoughts as far as
I have judged them sound and they came within
the scope of my present work. I have not felt
myself bound to adhere to my own past thoughts
or expressions any farther than they coincide
with my present convictions, and I have written
as freely and as independently as if I had never 
PREFACE.
written or published any thing before. I have
never been the slave of my own past, and truth
has always been dearer to me than my own opinions. This work is not only my latest, but will
be my last on politics or government, and must
be taken as the authentic, and the only authentic
statement of my political views and convictions,
and whatever in any of my previous writings
conflicts with the principles defended in its pages,
must be regarded as retracted, and rejected.
The work now produced is based on scientific
principles; but it is an essay rather than a scientific treatise, and even good-natured critics will,
no doubt, pronounce it an article or a series of
articles designed for a review, rather than a book.
It is hard to overcome the habits of a lifetime. I
have taken some pains to exchange the reviewer
for the author, but am fully conscious that I
have not succeeded. My work can lay claim to
very little artistic merit. It is full of repetitions;
the same thought is frequently recurring, -the result, to some extent, no doubt, of carelessness
and the want of artistic skill; but to a greater extent, I fear, of "malice aforethought."  In composing my work I have followed, rather than directed, the course of my thought, and, having very
little confidence in the memory or industry of
readers, I have preferred, when the completeness
,oo
Vlll 
PREFACE.
o)f the argument required it, to repeat myself to
encumbering my pages with perpetual references
t(, what has gone before.
That I attach some value to this work is evidert from my consenting to its publication; but
how much or how little of it is really mine, I am
quite unable to say.  I have, from my youth up,
been reading, observing, thinking, reflecting,
talkilg, I had almost said writing, at least by fits
and starts, on political subjects, especially in
their connection with philosophy, theology, history, and social progress, and have assimilated
to my own mind what it would assimilate, without keeping any notes of the sources whence the
materials assimilated were derived. I have written freely from my own mind as I find it now
formed; but how it has been so formed, or
whence I have borrowed, my readers know as well
as I. All that is valuable in the thoughts set forth,
it is safe to assume has been appropriated from
others. WVhere I have been distinctly conscious
of borrowing what has not become common
property, I have given credit, or, at least, mentioned the author's name, with three important 
exceptions which I wish to note more formally.
I am principally indebted for the view of
American nationality and the Federal Constitution I present, to hints and suggestions furnished
ix 
PREFACE.
by the remarkable work of John C. HIurd, Esq.,
on The Law of Freedom and Bondage in tie
Un?ited States, a work of rare learning and profound philosophic views.   I could not have
written my work without the aid derived from
its suggestions, any more than I could without Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Suarez,
Pierre Leroux, and the Abbate Gioberti. To
these two last-named authors, one a humanitarian sophist, the other a Catholic priest, and certainly one of the profoundest philosophical writers of this century, I am much indebted, though
I have followed the political system of neither.
I have taken from Leroux the germs of the
doctrine I set forth on the solidarity of the race,
and from Gioberti the doctrine I defend in relation to the creative act, which is, after all, simply
that of the Credo and the first verse of Genesis.
In treating the several questions which the preparation of this volume has brought up, in their
connection, and in the light of first principles, I
have changed or modified, on more than one important point, the views I had expressed in my
previous writings, especially on the distinction
between civilized and barbaric nations, the real
basis of civilization itself, and the value to the
world of the Graeco-Roman civilization. I have
ranked feudalism under the head of barbarism,
X 
PREFACE 
rejected every species of political aristocracy,
and represented the English constitution as essentially antagonistic to the American, not as its
type. I have accepted universal suffrage in
principle, and defended American democracy,
which I define to be territorial democracy, and
carefully distinguish from pure individualism on
the one hand, and from pure socialism or humanitarianism on the other.
I reject the doctrine of State sovereignty, which
I held and defended from 1828 to 1861, but still
maintain that the sovereignty of the American
Republic vests in the States, though in the States
collectively, or united, not severally, and thus
escape alike consolidation and disintegration. I
find, with Mr. Madison, our most philosophic
statesman, the originality of the American system in the division of powers between a General
government having sole charge of the foreign
and general, and particular or State governments
having, within their respective territories, sole
charge of the particular relations and interests of
the American people; but I do not accept his
concession that this division is of conventional
origin, and maintain that it enters into the original Providential constitution of the American
state, as I have done in my Review for October,
1863, and January and October, 1864.
AL 
P R E F-ACE.
I maintain, after Mr. Senator Sumner, one of
the most philosophic and accomplished living
American statesmen, that  "State secession is
State suicide," but modify the opinion I too hastily expressed that the political death of a State
dissolves civil society within its territory and abrogates all rights held under it, and accept the
doctrine that the laws in force at the time of secession remain in force till superseded or abrogated
:by competent authority, and also that, till the State
is revived and restored as a State in the Union,
the only authority, under the American system,
competent to supersede or abrogate them is the
United States, not Congress, far less the Executive. The error of the Government is not in recognizing the territorial laws as surviving secession, but in counting a State that has seceded as
still a State in the Union, with the right to be
counted as one of the United States in amending
-the Constitution.  Such State goes out of the
Union, but comes under it.
I have endeavored throughout to refer my particular political views to their general principles,
and to show that the general principles asserted
have their origin and ground in the great, universal, and unchanging principles of the universe itself. Hlence, I have labored to show the scientific
relations of political to theological principles, the
I 
PREPACE.
real principles of all science, as of all reality.
An atheist, I have said, may be a politician; but
if there were no God, there could be no politics.
This may offend the sciolists of the age, but I
must follow science where it leads, and cannot
be arrested by those who mistake their darkness
for light.
I write throughout as a Christian, because I
am a Christian; as a Catholic, because all Christian principles, nay, all real principles are cath.
olic, and there is nothing sectarian either in nature or revelation. I am a Catholic by God's
grace and great goodness, and must write as Iam. I could not write otherwise if I would, and
would not if I could. I have not obtruded my
religion, and have referred to it only where my
argument demanded it; but I have had neither
the weakness nor the bad taste to seek to conceal or disguise it. I could never have written my book without the knowledge I have, as a
Catholic, of Catholic theology, and my acquaintance, slight as it is, with the great fathers and
doctors of the church, the great masters of all
that is solid or permanent in modern thoug,ht,
either with Catholics or non-Catholics.
Moreover, though I write for all Americans,
without distinction of sect or party, I have had
more especially in view the people of my own
*..
2:L 
PREFACE.
religious communion. It is no discredit to a
man in the United States at the present day to
be a firm, sincere, and devout Catholic. The
old sectarian prejudice may remain with a few,
"whose eyes," as Emerson says, "are in their
hind-head, not in their fore-head;" but the
American people are not at heart sectarian, and
the nothingarianism so prevalent among them
only marks their state of transition from sectarian opinions to positive Catholic  faith.   At
any rate, it can no longer be denied that Catholics are an integral, living, and growing element
in the American population, quite too numerous,
too wealthy, and too influential to be ignored.
They have played too conspicuous a part in the
late troubles of the country, and poured out too
freely and too much of their richest and noblest
blood in defence of the unity of the nation and
the integrity of its domain, for that. Catholics
henceforth must be treated as standing, in all
respects, on a footing of equality with any other
class of American citizens, and their views of
political science, or of any other science, be
counted of equal importance, and listened to
with equal attention.
I have no fears that my book will be neglected because avowedly by a Catholic author,
and from a Catholic publishing house. They
xiv. 
PREFACE
who are not Catholics will read it, and it will
enter into the current of American literature, if it
is one they must read in order to be up with the
living and growing thought of the age. If it is
mot a book of that sort, it is not worth reading
by any one.
Furthermore, I am ambitious, even in my old
age, and I wish to exert an influence on the
future of my country, for which I have made,
or, rather, my family have made, some sacrifices,
and which I tenderly love. Now, I believe that
he who can exert the most influence on our Catholic population, especially in giving tone and direction to our Catholic youth, will exert the most
influence in forming the character and shaping
the future destiny of the American Republic.
Ambition and patriotism alike, as well as my
own Catholic faith and sympathies, induce mg
to address myself primarily to Catholics. I quar rel with none of the sects; I honor virtue wher ever I see it, and accept truth wherever I find it;
but, in my belief, no sect is destined to a long life,
or a permanent possession. I engage in no con troversy with any one not of my religion, for, if
the positive, affirmative truth is brought out and
placed in a clear light before the public, what ever is sectarian in any of the sects will disap pear as the morning mists before the rising sun
XV 
PREFACE.
I expect the most intelligent and satisfactory
appreciation of my book from the thinking and
educated classes among Catholics; but I speak
to my countrymen at large. I could not personally serve my country in the field: my habits as
well as my infirmities prevented, to say nothing
of my age;, but I have endeavored in this humble work to add my contribution, small though
it may te, to political science, and to discharge,
as far as I am able, my debt of loyalty and patriotism. I would the book were more of a book,
more worthy of my countrymen, and a more
weighty proof of the love I bear them, and
with which I have written it. All I can say is,
that it is an honest book, a sincere book, and
contains my best thoughts on the subjects
treated. If well received, I shall be grateful; if
neglected, I shall endeavor to practise resignation, as I have so often done.
O. A. BnOWNSON.
ELIZABETH, N.J., September 16, 1865.
xvi 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER I.
INTROD OUCTI ON.
THE ancients summed up the whole of human
wisdom in the maxim, Know Thyself, and certainly there is for an individual no more important as there is no more difficult knowledge,
than knowledge of himself, whence he comes,
whither he goes, what he is, what he is for,
what he can do, what he ought to do, and
what are his means of doing it.
Nations are only individuals on a larger scale.
They have a life, an individuality, a reason, a
conscience, and instincts of their own, and have
the same general laws of development and
growth, and, perhaps, of decay, as the individ.
ual man. Equally important, and no less difficult than for the individual, is it for a nation
to know itself, understand its own existence, its own powers and faculties, rights and
duties, constitution, instincts, tendencies, and
2 
THE AkMERICAN REPUBLIC.
destiny. A nation has a spiritual as well as a
material, a moral as well as a physical existence,
and is subjected to internal as wel] as external
conditions of health and virtue, greatness and
grandeur, which it must in some measure understand and observe, or become weak and
infirm, stunted in its growth, and end in premature decay and death.
Among nations, no one has more need of full
knowledge of itself than the United States, and
no one has hitherto had less. It has hardly
had a distinct consciousness of its own national
existence, and has lived the irreflective life of
the child, with no severe trial, till the recent
rebellion, to throw it back on itself and compel
it to reflect on its own constitution, its own
separate existence, individuality, tendencies,
and end.   The defection of the slaveholding
States, and the fearful struggle that has followed for national unity and integrity, have
brought it at once to a distinct recognition
of itself, and forced it to pass from thoughtless, careless, heedless, reckless adolescence to
grave and'reflecting manhood.  The nation has
been suddenly compelled to study itself, and
henceforth must act from reflection, understanding, science, statesmanship, not from instinct,
impulse, passion, or caprice, knowing well what
2 
INTRODUCTION.
it does, and wherefore it does it. The change
which four years of civil war have wrought in
the nation is great, and is sure to give it the
seriousness, the gravity, the dignity, the manliness it has heretofore lacked.
Though the nation has been brought to a
consciousness of its own existence, it has not,
even yet, attained to a full and clear under.
standing of its own national constitution. Its
vision is still obscured by the floating mists
of its earlier morning, and its judgment rendered indistinct and indecisive by the wild
theories and fancies of its childhood.  The national mind has been quickened, the national
heart has been opened, the national disposition
prepared, but there remains the important work
of dissipating the mists that still linger, of
brushing away these wild theories and fancies,
and of enabling it to form a clear and intelligent
judgment of itself, and a true and just appreciation of its own constitution, tendencies, and
destiny; or, in other words, of enabling the
nation to understand its own idea, and the
means of its actualization in space and time.
Every living nation has an idea given it by
Providence to realize, and whose realization is
its special work, mission, or destihy. Every
nation is, in some sense, a chosen people of
3 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
God. The Jews were the chosen people of
God, through whom the primitive traditions
were to be preserved in their purity and integrity, and the Messiah was to come. The Greeks
were the chosen people of God, for the development and realization of the beautiful or the
divine splendor in art, and of the true in science
and philosophy; and the Romans, for the development of the state, law, and jurisprudence.
The great despotic nations of Asia were never
properly nations; or if they were nations with
a mission, they proved false to it, and count for
nothing in the progressive development of the
human race. History has not recorded their
mission, and as far as they are known they
have contributed only to the abnormal development or corruption of religion and civilization.
Despotism is barbaric and abnormal.
The United States, or the American Republic, has a mission, and is chosen of God for the
realization of a great idea. It has been chosen
not only to continue the work assigned to
Greece and Rome, but to accomplish a greater
work than was assigned to either. In art, it will
prove false to its mission if it do not rival Greece;
and in science and philosophy, if it do not sur
pass it. In the state, in law, in jurisprudence,
it must continue and surpass Rome. Its idea
4 
INTRODUCTION.
is liberty, indeed, but liberty with law, and law
with liberty. Yet its mission is not so much
the realization of liberty as the realization of
the true idea of the state, which secures at once
the authority of the public and the freedom of
the individual-the sovereignty of the people
without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy.   In other words, its
mission is to bring out in its life the dialectic
union of authority and liberty, of the natural
rights of man and those of society. The Greek
and Roman republics asserted the state to
the detriment of individual freedom; modern
republics either do the same, or assert individual freedom to the detriment of the state.
The American republic has been instituted by
Providence to realize the freedom of each with
advantage to the other.
The real mission of the United States is to
introduce and establish a political constitution,
which, while it retains all the advantages of the
constitutions of states thus far known, is unlike
any of them, and secures advantages which none
of them did or could possess. The American
constitution has no prototype in any prior constitution. The American form of government
can be classed throughout with none of the
forms of government described by Aristotle, or
15 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
even by later authorities. Aristotle knew only
four forms of government: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy, and Mixed Governments. The
American form is none of these, nor any combination of them. It is original, a new contribution to political science, and seeks to attain
the end of all wise and just government by
means unknown or forbidden to the ancients,
and which have been but imperfectly comprehended even by American political writers themselves. The originality of the American constitution has been overlooked by the great
majority even of our own statesmen, who seek
to explain it by analogies borrowed from the
constitutions of other states rather than by a
profound study of its own principles. They
have taken too low a view of it, and have
rarely, if ever, appreciated its distinctive and
peculiar merits.
As the United States have vindicated their
national unity and integrity, and are preparing
to take a new start in history, nothing is more
important than that they should take that new
start with a clear and definite view of their
national constitution, and with a distinct understanding of their political mission in the future of the world. Thie citizen who can help his
countrymen to do this will render them an im
6 
INTRODUCTION.
portant service and deserve well of his country,
though he may have been unable to serve in her
armies and defend her on the battle-field. The
work now to be done by American statesmen
is even more difficult and more delicate than
that wvhich has been accomplished by our brave
armies. As yet the people are hardly better
prepared for the political work to be done than
they were at the outbreak of the civil war for
the military work they have so nobly achieved.
But, with time, patience, and good-wili, the
difficulties may be overcome, the errors of the
past corrected, and the Government placed on
the right track for the future.
It will hardly be questioned that either the
constitution of the United States is very defective or it has been very grossly misinterpreted
by all parties. If the slave States had not held
that the States are severally sovereign, and the
Constitution of the United States a simple
agreement or compact, they would never have
seceded; and if the Free States had not con founded the Union with the General govern ment, and shown a tendency to make it the
entire national government, no occasion or
pretext for secession would have been given.
The great problem of our statesmen has been
from the first, How to assert union without
7 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
consolidation, and State rights without disintegration?  Have they, as yet, solved that
problem? The war has silenced the State
sovereignty doctrine, indeed, but has it done
so without lesion to State rights? Has it done
it without asserting the General government
as the supreme, central, or national government? Has it done it without striking a dan.
gerous blow at the federal element of the constitution?  In suppressing by armed force the
doctrine that the States are severally sovereign,
what barrier is left against consolidation? Has
not one danger been removed only to give place
to another?
But perhaps the constitution itself, if rightly
understood, solves the problem; and perhaps
the prob)lem itself is raised precisely through
misunderstanding of the constitution.   Our
statesmen have recognized no constitution of
the American people themselves; they have
confined their views to the written constitution, as if that constituted the American people
a state or nation, instead of being, as it is, only
a law ordained by the nation already existing
and constituted. Perhaps, if they had recognized and studied the constitution which preceded that drawn up by the Convention of
1l87, and which is intrinsic, inherent in the
8 
INTRODUCTION.
republic itself, they would have seen that it
solves the problem, and asserts national unity
without consolidation, and the rights of the
several States without danger of disintegration.
The whole controversy, possibly, has originated
in a misunderstanding of the real constitution
of the United States, and that misunderstanding
itself in the misunderstanding of the origin and
constitution of government in general. tThe
constitution, as will appear in the course of
this essay, is not defective; )and all that is necessary to guard against either danger is to'
discard all our theories of the constitution, and
return and adhere to the constitution itself, as
it really is and always has been.
Tlhere is no doubt that the question of Slavery had much to do with the rebellion, but it
was not its sole cause.  The real cause must be
sought in the progress that had been made,
especially in the States themselves, in forming
and administering their respective governments, as well as the General government, in accordance with political theories borrowed from
European speculators on government, the socalled Liberals and Revolutionists, which have
and can have no legitimate application in the
United States.   The tendency of American
politics, for the last thirty or forty years, has
9
ti 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
been, within the several States themselves, in
the direction of centralized democracy, as if the
American people had for their mission only
the  reproduction  of ancient Athens.   The
American system is not that of any of the simple forms of government, nor any combination
of them. The attempt to bring it under any
of the simple or mixed forms of government
recognized by political writers, is an attempt
to clothe the future in the cast-off garments of
the past.   The American system, wherever
practicable, is better than monarchy, better
than aristocracy, better than simple democracy,
better than any possible combination of these
several forms, because it accords more nearly
with the principles of things, the real order of
the universe.
But American statesmen have studied the
constitutions of other states more than that of
their own, and have succeeded in obscuring the
American system in the minds of the people,
and giving them in its place pure and simple
democracy, which is its false development or
corruption.  Under the influence of this false
development, the people were fast losing sight
of the political truth that, though the people
are sovereign, it is the organic, not the inorganic
people, the territorial people, not the people as
10 
INTRODUCTION.
simple population, and were beginning to assert
the absolute God-given right of the majority to
govern. All the changes made in the bosom of
the States themselves have consisted in removing all obstacles to the irresponsible will of the
majority, leaving minorities and individuals at
their mercy. This tendency to a centralized
democracy had more to do with provoking
secession and rebellion than the anti-slavery
sentiments of the Northern, Central, and Western States.
The failure of secession and the triumph of
the National cause, in spite of the short-sightedness and blundering of the Administration, have
proved the vitality and strength of the national constitution, and the greatness of the American people. They say nothing for or against
the democratic theory of our demagogues, but
every thing in favor of the American  system
or constitution of government, which has found
a firmer support in American instincts than in
American statesmanship. In spite of all that
had been done by theorists, radicals, and revolutionists, no-government men,  non-resistants,
humanitarians, and  sickly sentimentalists to
corrupt the American people in mind, heart,
and body, the native vigor of their national
constitution has enabled them to come forth
11 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
triumphant from the trial. Every American
patriot has reason to be proud of his countrymen, and every American lover of freedom to
be satisfied with the institutions of his country.
But there is danger that the politicians and
demagogues will ascribe the merit, not to the
real and living national constitution, but to
their miserable theories of that constitution,
and labor to aggravate the several evils and corrupt tendencies which caused the rebellion it
has cost so much to suppress. What is now
wanted is, that the people, whose instincts are
right, should understand the American constitution as it is, and so understand it as to render it impossible for political theorists, no matter of what school or party, to deceive them
again as to its real import, or induce them to
depart from it in their political action.
A work written with temper, without passion or sectional prejudice, in a philosophical
spirit, explaining to the American people their
own national constitution, and the mutual relations of the General government and the
State governments, cannot, at this important
crisis in our affairs, be inopportune, and, if properly executed, can hardly fail to be of real
service. Such a work is now attemptedwould it were by another and abler hand
12 
INTRODUCTION.
which, imperfect as it is, may at least offer
some useful suggestions, give a right direction
to political thought, although it should fail to
satisfy the mind of the reader.
This much the author may say in favor of
his own work, that it sets forth no theory of
government in general, or of the United States
in particular. The author is not a monarchist,
an aristocrat, a democrat, a feudalist, nor an
advocate of what are called mixed governments
like the English, at least for his own country;
but is simply an American, devoted to the
real, living, and energizing constitution of the
American republic as it is, not as some may
fancy it might be, or are striving to make it.
It is, iiin his judgment, what it ought to be, and
he has no other ambition than to present it as
it is to the understanding and love of his countrymen.
Perhaps simple artistic unity and pro.
priety would require the author to commence
his essay directly with the United States; but
while the constitution of the United States is
original and peculiar, the government of the
United States has necessarily something in common with all legitimate governments, and he
has thought it best to precede his discussion of
the American republic, its constitution, tenden.
.0
13 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
cies, and destiny, by some considerations on
government in general. He does this because
he believes, whether rightly or not, that while
the American people have received friom Providence a most truly profound and admirable
system of government, they are more or less infected with the false theories of government
which have been broached during the last two
centuries. In attempting to realize these theories, they have already provoked or rendered
practicable a rebellion which has seriously
threatened the national existence, and come
very near putting an end to the American order
of civilization itself. These theories have received already a shock in the minds of all serious and thinking men;  but  the men who
think are in every nation a small minority, and
it is necessary to give these theories a public
refutation, and bring back those who do not
think, as well as those who do, from the world
of dreams to the world of reality. It is hoped,
therefore, that any apparent want of artistic
unity or symmetry in the essay will be pardoned for the sake of the end the author has
had in view.
I*
14 
GOVERNMEFNT.
CHAPTER II.
G 0 VERNMEN T.
MIAN is a dependent being, and neither does
nor can suffice for himself.   He lives not in
himself, but lives and moves and has his being
ill God. He exists, develops, and fulfils his existence only by communion with God, through
which he participates of the divine being and
life. He communes with God through the
divine creative act and the Incarnation of the
Word, through his kind, and through the material world. Communion with God through Crea.
tion and Incarnation is religion, distinctively
taken, which binds man to God as his first
cause, and carries him onward to God as his
final cause; communion through the material
world is expressed by the word property; and
communion with God through humanity is society. Religion, society, property, are the three
terms that embrace the whole of man's life, and
express the essential means and conditions of
his existence, his development, and his perfee.
15 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
tion, or the fulfilment of his existence, the attaiii
ment of the end for which lhe is created.
Though society, or the communion of man with
his Maker through his kind, is not all that man
needs in order to live, to grow, to actualize the
possibilities of his nature, and to attain to his
beatitude, since humanity is neither God nor the
material universe, it is yet a necessary and essential condition of his life, his progress, and the
completion of his existence. He is born and
lives in society, and can be born and live nowhere else.  It is one of the necessities of his
nature. "God saw that it was not good for
man to be alone." Hence, wherever man is
found he is found in society, living in more or
less streeict intercourse with his kind.
But society never does and never can exist
without government of some sort. As society
is a necessity of man's nature, so is government
a necessity of society. The simplest form of
society is the family-Adam and Eve. But
though Adam and Eve are in many respects
equal, and have equally important though different parts assigned them, one or the other
must be head and governor, or they cannot form
the society called family.   They  would  be
simply two individuals of different sexes, and
the family would fail for the want of unity.
16 
GOVERNMEENT.
Children cannot be reared, trained, or educated
without some degree of family government, of
some authority to direct, control, restrain, or
prescribe. Hence the authority of the husband
and father is recognized by the common consent of mankind.  Still more apparent is the
necessity of government the moment the family
develops and grows into the tribe, and the tribe
into the nation.  lence no nation exists without government; and we never find a savage
tribe, however low or degraded, that does. not
assert somewhere, in the father, in the elders,
or in the tribe itself, the rude outlines or the
faint reminiscences of some  sort of government, with authority to demand obedience
and to punish the refractory. Hence, as man is
nowhere found out of society, so nowhere is society found without government.
Government is necessary: but let it be remarked by the way, that its necessity does not
gro w exclusively or chiefly out of the fact that
the       human race by sin has fallen fromn its primitive  inte gritv or original righteousness.  The
f.l  asserted by  Christian theology, though
often  misinterpreted, and its effects uindlerrated
or e xaggerated, is a fact too sadly confirmed
ty  individual experience and universal history;
but      it is not the cause why government is neces
3
17 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
sary, though it may be an additional reason
for demanding it. Government would have
been necessary if man had not sinned, and it is
needed for the good as well as for the bad. The
law was promulgated in the Garden, while man
retained his innocence and remained in the integrity of his nature. It exists in heaven as
well as on earth, and in heaven in its perfection. Its office is not purely repressive, to restrain violence, to redress wrongs, and to punish
the transgressor. It has something more to do
than to restrict our natural liberty, curb our
passions, and maintain justice between man and
man. Its office is positive as well as negative. -It
is needed to render effective the solidarity of the
individuals of a nation, and to render the nation
an organism, not a mere organization-to combine men in one living body, and to strengthen
all with the strength of each, and each with the
strength of all-to develop, strengthen, and
sustain individual liberty, and to utilize and
direct it to the promotion of the common weal
-to be a social providence, imitating in its
order and degree the action of the divine providence itself, and, while it provides for the
common good of all, to protect each, the lowest
and meanest, with the whole force and majesty
of society. It is the minister of wrath to wrong
18 
GOVERNMENT.
doers, indeed, but its nature is beneficent, and
its action defines and protects the right of property, creates and maintains a medium in which
religion can exert her supernatural energy, promotes learning, fosters science and art, advances
civilization, and contributes as a powerful
means to the fulfilment by man of the Divine
purpose in his existence. Next after religion,
it is man's greatest good; and even religion
without it can do only a small portion of her
work.  They wrong it who call it a necessary
evil; it is a great good, and, instead of being
distrusted, hated, or resisted, except in its
abuses, it should be loved, respected, obeyed,
and, if need be, defended at the cost of all
earthly goods, and even of life itself.
The nature or essence of government is to
govern. A government that does not govern,
is simply no government at all. If it has not
the ability to govern and governs not, it may
be an agency, an instrument in the hands of
individuals for advancing their private interests, but it is not government. To be government, it must govern both individuals and the
community. If it is a mere machine for making
prevail the will of one man, of a certain number
of men, or even of the community, it may be
very effective sometimes for good, sometimes
19 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
for evil, oftenest for evil, but government in the
proper sense of the word it is not. To govern
is to direct, control, restrain, as the pilot colntrols and directs his ship.  It necessarily im.
plies two terms, governor and governed, and a
real distinction between them. The denial of
all real distinction between governor aqn( governed is an error in politics analogous to that
in philosophy or theology of denying, all real
distinction between creator and creature, God
and the universe, which all the world knows is
either pantheism or pure atheism-the supreme
sophism.  If we make governor and governed
one and the same, we efface both terms; for
there is no governor nor governed, if the will
that governs is identically the will that is governed.  To make the controller and tile colntrolled the same, is precisely to deny all control.
There must, then, if there is government at all,
be a power, force, or will that governs, distinct
from  that which is governed.  In those governments in which it is held that the people
govern, the people governing do and EiLnst act
in a diverse relation from the people governed,
or there is no real governmrent.
Government is not only that which governs,
but that which has the right or authority to
govern.  Power without rig,t is not govern
-VI'
20 
GOVERNMENT.
ment. Governments have the right to use force
at need, but might does not make right, and
not every power wielding the physical force of a
nation is to be regarded as its rightful government. Whatever resort to physical force it may
be obliged to make, either in defence of its authority or of the rights of the nation, the govern.
ment itself lies in the moral order, and poli.
tics is simply a branch of ethics-that branch
which treats of the rights and duties of men in
their public relations, as distinguished from their
rights and duties in their private relations.
Government being not only that which governs, but that which has the right to govern,
obedience to it becomes a moral duty, not a
mere physical necessity. The right to govern
and the duty to obey are correlatives, and the
one cannot exist or be conceived without the
other. Hence loyalty is not simply an amiable
sentiment, but a duty, a moral virtue. Treason
is not merely a difference in political opinion
with the  governing authority, but  a crime
against the sovereign, and a moral wrong, therefore a sin against God, the Founder of the
Mloral Law. Treason, if committed in other
countries, unhappily, has been more frequently termed by our countrymen patriotism and
loaded with honor than branded as a crime, the
21 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
greatest of crimes, as it is, that human governments have authorit y to punish.  The American people have been chary of the word loyalty,
perhaps because they regard it as the correlative
of royalty; but loyalty is rather the correlative
of law, and is, in its essence, love and devotion
to the sovereign authority, however constituted
o       r        wherever lodged. It is as necessary,  as
much a duty, as much a virtue in republics as
in monarchies; and nobler examples of the most
devoted loyalty are not found in the world's history than were exhibited in the ancient Greek
and Roman republics, or than have been exhibited by both men and women in the young
republic of the United States. Loyalty is the
highest, noblest, and most generous of human
virtues, and is the human element of that sublime love or charity which the inspired Apostle
tells us is the fulfilment of the law. It has in
it the principle of devotion, of self-sacrifice, and
is, of all human virtues, that which renders
man the most Godlike. There is nothing great,
generous, good, or heroic of which a truly
loyal people are not capable, and nothing mean,
base, cruel, brutal, criminal, detestable, not to
be expected of a really disloyal people. Such
a people no generous sentiment can move, no
love can bind. It mocks at duty, scorns vir.
22 
GO VERNMENT.
tue, tramples on all rights, and holds no person,
no thing, human or divine, sacred or inviolable.
The assertion of government as lying in the
moral order, defines civil liberty, and reconciles it with authority. Civil liberty is freedom to do whatever one pleases that authority
permits or does not forbid. Freedom to follow
in all things one's own will or inclination,
without any civil restraint, is license, not liberty. There is no lesion to liberty in repressing license, nor in requiring obedience to
the commands of the authority that has the
right to command. Tyranny or oppression is
not in being subjected to authority, but in
being subjected to usurped authority-to a
power that has no right to command, or that
commands what exceeds its right or its authority. To say that it is contrary to liberty to be
forced to forego our own will or inclination in
any case whatever, is simply denying the right
of all government, and falling into no-govern.
mentism.  Liberty is violated only when  we
are required to forego our own will or inclination by a power that has no right to make the
requisition; for we are bound to obedience as
far as authority has right to govern, and we
can never have the right to disobey a rightful
command. The requisition, if made by right
23
IF 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
fil authority, then, violates no right that we
have or can have, and where there is no violation of our rights there is no violation of our
liberty. The moral right of authority, which
involves the moral duty of obedience, presents,
then, the ground on which liberty and authority
may meet in peace and operate to the same end.
This has  no  resemblance  to the slavish
doctrine of passive obedience, and that the
resistance to power can never be lawful. The
tyrant may be lawfully resisted, for the tyrant, by force of the word itself, is a usurper,
and without authority.  Abuses of power may
be resisted even by force when they become
too great to be endured, when there is no legal
or regular way of redressing them, and when
there is a reasonable prospect that resistance
will prove effectual and substitute something
better in their place.  But it is never lawful
to resist the rightful sovereign, for it can
never be right to resist right, and the rightful
sovereign in the constitutional exercise of his
power can never be said to abuse it. Abuse
is the unconstitutional or wrongful exercise
of a power rightfully held, and when it is not
so exercised there is no abuse or abuses to
redress. All turns, then, on the right of power,
or its legitimacy. Whence does government de
24 
GOVERNMENT.
trve its right to govern?  What is the origin
and ground of sovereignty?  This question is
fundamental, and without a true answer to it
politics cannot be a science, and there can be no
scientific statesmanship.  Whence, then, comes
the sovereign right to govern?
25 
TTHE AMERIOAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER III.
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT iS both a fact and a right. Its
origin as a fact, is simply a question of history; its origin as a right or authority to govern, is a question of ethics. Whether a certain
territory and its population are a sovereign
state or nation, or not-whether the actual
ruler of a country is its rightful ruler, or'notis to be determined by the historical facts in
the case; but whence the government qerives
its right to govern, is a question that can be
solved only by philosophy, or, philosophy failing, only by revelation.
Political writers, not carefully distinguishing
between the fact and the right, have invented
various theories as to the origin of government,
among which may be named   I. Government originates in the right of the
father to govern his child.
II. It originates in convention, and is a social
compact.
26
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
III. It originates in the people, who, collec.
tively taken, are sovereign.
IV. Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature.
V. It derives its right from the immediate
and express appointment of God;  VI. From God through the Pope, or visible
head of the spiritual society;  VII. From God through the. people;  VIII. From God through the natural law.
I. The first theory is sound, if the question
is confined to the origin of government as a
fact. The patriarchal system is the earliest
known system of government, and unmistakable traces of it are found in nearly all known
governments-in  the  tribes of Arabia  and
Northern Africa, the Irish septs and the Scottish clans, the Tartar hordes, the Roman gentes,
and the Russian and Hindoo village. The
right of the father was held to be his right to
govern his family or household, which, with his
children, included his wife and servants. From
the family to the tribe the transition is natural
and easy, as also from the tribe to the nation.
The father is chief of the family; the chief of
the eldest family is chief of the tribe; the chief
of the eldest tribe becomes chief of the nation,
27 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
and, as such, king or monarch. The heads of
families collected in a senate form an aristocracy, and the families themselves, represented
by their delegates, or publicly assembling for
public affairs, constitute a democracy.  These
three forms, with their several combinations,
to wit, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and
mixed governments, are all the forms known to
Aristotle, and have generally been held to be
all that are possible.
Historically, all governments have, in some
sense, been developed from the patriarchal, as
all society has been developed from the family.
Even those governments, like the ancient Romian
and the modern  feudal, which  seem  to be
founded on landed property, may be traced
back to a patriarchal origin. The patriarch is
sole proprietor, and the possessions of the fain.
ily are vested in him, and he governs as proprietor as well as father. In the tribe, the
chief is the proprietor, and in the nation, the
king is the landlord, and holds the domain.
Hence, the feudal baron is invested with his
fief by the suzerain, holds it from him, and to
him it escheats when forfeited or vacant. All
the great Asiatic kings of ancient or modern
times hold the domain and govern as proprie.
tors; they have the authority of the father and
28 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the owner; and their subjects, though theoreti.
cally their children, are really their slaves.
In Rome, however, the proprietary right unn
dergoes  an  important  transformation.   The
father retains all the power of the patriarch
withlin his family, the patrician in his yens or
house, but, outside of it, is met and controlled
by the city or state. The heads of houses are
united in the senate, and collectively constitute
and govern the state. Yet, not all the heads
of houses have seats in the senate, but only
the tenants of the sacred territory of the city,
which has been surveyed and marked by the
god Terminus. Hence the great plebeian houses,
often richer and nobler than the patrician, were
excluded from all share in the government and
the honors of the state, because they were not
tenants of any portion of the sacred territory.
There is here the introduction of an element
which is not patriarchal, and which transforms
the patriarch or chief of a tribe into the city or
state, and founds the civil order, or what is
nowv called civilization.  The city or state takes
the place of the private proprietor, and territorial
rights take the place of purely personal rights.
In the theoiy of the Roman law, the land
owns the man, not thie man the land.  When
land was transferred to a new  tenant, the prac
21,1 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
tice in early times was to buiy him in it, in
order to indicate that it took possession of
him, received, accepted, or adopted him; and
it was only such persons as were taken possession of, accepted or adopted by the sacred territory or domain that, though denizens of Rome,
were citizens with full political rights. This,
in modern language, means that the state is
territorial, not personal, and that the citizen appertains to the state, not the state to the citizen. Under the patriarchal, the tribal, and the
Asiatic monarchical systems, there is, properly
speaking, no state, no citizens, and the organization is economical rather than political. Authority  even the nation itself is personal, not
territorial. The patriarch, the chief of the
tribe, or the king, is the only proprietor. Under the Grxco-Roman system all this is transformed. The nation is territorial as well as
personal, and the real proprietor is the city or
state. Under the Empire, no doubt, what lawyers call the eminent domain was vested in
the emperor, but only as the representative
and trustee of the city or state.
When or by what combination of events this
transformation was effected, history does not
inform us. The first-born of Adam, we are
told, built a city, and called it after his son
30 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
Enoch; but there is no evidence that it was
constituted a municipality. The earliest traces
of the civil order proper are found in the Greek
and Italian republics, and its fullest and grandest developments are found in Rome, imperial
as well as republican. It was no doubt preceded by the patriarchal system, and was historically developed from it, but by way of
accretion, rather than by simple explication.
It has in it an element that, if it exists in the
patriarchal constitution, exists there only in a
different form, and the transformation marks
the passage from the economical order to the
political, from the barbaric to the civil constitution of society, or from barbarism to
civilization.
The word civilization stands opposed to bar.
barism, and is derived from cvitas-city or
state. The Greeks and Romans call all tribes
and nations in which authority is vested in the
chief, as distinguished from the state, barbari.
ans. The origin of the word barbarian, barbarus, or [appagoo, is unknown, and its primary sense can be only conjectured. Webster
regards its primary sense as foreign, wild,
fierce; but this could not have been its original
sense; for the Greeks and Romans never termed
all foreigners barbarians, and they applied the
31' 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
term to nations that had no inconsiderable cul.
ture and refinement of manners, and that bad
rmade respectable progress in art and scienceas the Indians, Persians, Medians, Chaldea)s,
and Assyrians.  They applied the term evidently in a political, not an ethical or an Tsthetical
sense, and as it would seem to designate a social
order in which the state was not developed, and
in which the nation was personal, not territorial, and authority was held as a private right,
not as a public trust, or in whlicl the domain
vests in the chief or tribe, and not in the state;
for they never term any others barbarians.
Republic is opposed not to mnonarchy, in the
modern European sense, but to imonarchy in
the ancient or absolute sense.  Lacedamon had
kings;  yet it was  no  less republican  than
Athens; and Rlome was called and was a republic under the emperors no less than under the
consuls. Republic, re&})b4tca, by the very force
of the term, means the public wealth, or, in
good English, the commonwealth; that is, government founded not on personal or private
wealth, but on the public wealth, public territory, or domain, or a government that vests authority in the nation, and attaches the nation
to a certain definite territory.  France, Spain,
Italy, Hollandl, Belgium, Denmark, even Great
32 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
Britain in substance though not in form, are
all, in the strictest sense of the word, republican
states; for the king or emperor does not govern in his own private right, but solely as representative of the power and majesty of the state.
The distinctive mark of republicanism is the
substitution of the state for the personal chief,
and public authority for personal or private
right. Republicanism is really civilization as
opposed to barbarism, and all civility, in the
old sense of the word, or civilta in Italian, is
republican, and is applied in modern times to
breeding, or refinement of manners, simply because these are characteristics of a republican,
or polished [from rO~tg, city] people.  Every
people that has a real civil order, or a fully developed state or polity, is a republican people;
and hence the church and her great doctors,
when they speak of the state as distinguished
from the church, call it the republic, as may be
seen by consulting even a late Encyclical of
Pius IX., which some have interpreted wrongly
in an anti-republican sense.
All tribes and nations in which the patriarchal system remains, or is developed without
transformation, are barbaric, and really so regarded by all Christendom.  In civilized nations
the patriarchal authority is transformed into
3
33 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
that of the city or state, that is, of the republic;
but in all barbarous nations it retains its private
and personal character. The nation is only the
family or tribe, and is called by the name of
its ancestor, founder, or chief, not by a geographical denomination.   Race has not been
supplanted by country; they are a people, not
a state. They are not fixed to the soil, and
though we may find in them ardent love of
family, the tribe, or the chief, we never find
among them that pure love of country or patriotism which so distinguished the Greeks and
Romans, and is no less marked among modern
Christian nations. They have a family, a race, a
chief or king, but no patria, or country.   The
barbarians who overthrew the Roman Empire,
whether of the West or the East, were nations,
or confederacies of nations, but not states. The
nation with them was personal, not territorial.
Their country was wherever they fed their flocks
and herds, pitched their tents, and encamped for
the night. There were Germans, but no German
state, and even to-day the German finds his
"father-land" wherever the German speech is
spoken. The Polish, Sclavonian, Hungarian,
Illyrian, Italian, and other provinces held by
German states, in which the German language
is not the mother-tongue, are excluded from
34 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the Germanic Confederation. The Turks, or
Osmanlis, are a race, not a state, and  are
encamped, not settled, on the site of the Eastern
Roman or Greek Empire.
Even when the barbaric nations have ceased
to be nomadic, pastoral, or predatory nations,
as the ancient Assyrians and Persians or modern
Chinese, and have their geographical boundaries, they have still no state, no country.
The nation defines the boundaries, not the
boundaries the nation. The nation does not
belong to the territory, but the territory to the
nation or its chief. The Irish and Anglo-Saxons,
in former times, held the land in gavelkind,
and the territory belonged to the tribe or sept;
but if the tribe held it as indivisible, they still
held it as private property.   The shah of
Persia. holds the whole Persian territory as
private property, and the landholders among
his subjects are held to be his tenants. They
hold it from him, not from the Persian state.
The public domain of the Greek empire is in
theory the private domain of the Ottoman
emperor or Turkish sultan.  There is in barbaric states no republic, no commonwealth;
authority is parental, without being tempered
by parental affection.  The chief is a despot,
and rules with the unlimited authority of the
35 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
father and the harshness of th& proprietor.
He owns the land and his subjects.
Feudalism, established in Western Europe
after the downfall of the Roman Empire, however modified by the Church and by reminiscences of Greco-Roman civilization retained by
the conquered, was a barbaric constitution.
The feudal monarch, as far as he governed at
all, governed as proprietor or landholder, not
as the representative of the commonwealth.
Under feudalism there are estates, but no state.
The king governs as an estate, the nobles hold
their power as an estate, and the commons are
represented as an estate. The whole theory of
power is, that it is an estate; a private right,
not a public trust. It is not without reason,
then, that the common sense of civilized nations
terms the ages when it prevailed in Western
Europe barbarous ages.
It may seem a paradox to class democracy
with the barbaric constitutions, and yet as it is
defended by many stanch democrats, especially
European democrats and revolutionists, and by
French and Germans settled in our own coun.
try, it is essentially barbaric and anti-republican.
The characteristic principle of barbarism is,
that power is a private or personal right, and
when democrats assert that the elective fran.
36 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
chise is a natural right of man, or that it is
held by virtue of the fact that the elector is a
man, they assert the fundamental principle of
barbarism and despotism.   This says nothing
in favor of restricted suffrage, or against what
is called universal suffrage.   To restrict suffrage to property-holders helps nothing, theoretically or practically. Property has of itself
advantages enough, without clothing its holders
with exclusive political rights and privileges,
and the laboring classes any day are as trustworthy as the business classes.   The  wise
statesman will never restrict suffrage, or exclude
the poorer and more numerous classes from all
voice in the government of their country.
General suffrage is wise, and if Louis Philippe
had had the sense to adopt it, and thus rally
the vlwhole nation to the support of his government, he would never have had to encounter
the revolution of 1848.   The barbarism, the
despotism, is not in universal suffrage, but in
defending the elective franchise as a private or
personal right. It is not a private, but a political right, and, like all political rights, a public
trust.  Extremes meet, and thus it is that men
who imagine that they march at the head of
the human race and lead the civilization of the
age, are really in principle retrograding to the
37
J 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
barbarism of the past, or taking their place
with nations on whom the light of civilization
has never yet dawned. All is not gold that
glisters.
The characteristic of barbarism is, that it
makes all authority a private or personal right;
and the characteristic of civilization is, that it
makes it a public trust. Barbarism knows
only persons; civilization asserts and maintains
the state. With barbarians the authority of
the patriarch is developed simply by way of
explication; in civilized states it is developed
by way of transformation. Keeping in mind
this distinction, it may be maintained that all
systems of government, as a simple historical
fact, have been developed from the patriarchal.
The patriarchal has preceded them all, and it is 
with the patriarchal that the human race has
begun its career. The family or household is
not a state, a civil polity, but it is a government, and, historically considered, is the initial
or inchoate state as well as the initial or
inchoate nation. But its simple direct development gives us barbarism, or what is called
Oriental despotism, and which nowhere exists, or
can exist, in Christendom. It is found only in
pagan and Mohammedan nations; Christianity
in the secular order is republican, and continues
38 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
and completes the work of Greece and Rome.
It meets with little permanent success in any
patriarchal or despotic nation, and must either
find or create civilization, which has been developed from the patriarchal system by way of
transformation.
But, though the patriarchal system is the
earliest form of government, and all governmenats have been developed or modified from
it, the right of government to govern cannot
be deduced from the right of the father to
govern his children, for the parental right itself
is not ultimate or complete. All governments
that assume it to be so, and rest on it as the
foundation of their authority, are barbaric or
despotic, and, therefore, without any legitimate
authority. The right to govern rests on owner ship or dominion.  Where there is no proprie torship, there is no dominion; and where there
is no dominion, there is no right to govern.
Only he who is sovereign proprietor is sovereign
lord.
Property, ownership, dominion rests on crea tion. The maker has the right to the thing
made. He, so far as he is sole creator, is sole
proprietor, and may do what he will with it.
God is sovereign lord and proprietor of the
universe, because He is its sole creator. He
39 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
bath the absolute dominion, because He is absolute maker.  He has made it, He owns it; and
one may do what he will with his own. His
dominion is absolute, because He is absolute
creator, and He rightly governs as absolute and
universal lord; yet is He no despot, because
He exercises only His sovereign right, and His
own essential wisdom, goodness, justness, rectitude, and immutability, are the highest of all
conceivable guaranties that His exercise of His
power will always be right, wise, just, and
good.   The despot is a man  attempting to
be God upon earth, and to exercise a usurped
power. Despotism is based on the parental
right, and the parental right is assumed to be
absolute. Hence, your despotic rulers claim to
reign, and to be loved and worshipped as gods.
Even the Roman emperors, in the fourth and
fifth centuries, were addressed as divinities;
and Theodosius the Great, a Christian, was
addressed as "Your Eternity," -Eternita8 vestraB-so far did barbarism encroach on civilization, even under Christian emperors.
The right of the father over his child is
an imperfect right, for he is the generator,
not the creator of his child. Generation is in
the order of second causes, and is simply the
development or explication of the race.  The
40 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
early Roman law, founded on the confusion of
generation with creation, gave the father absolute authority over the child-the right of life
and death, as over his servants or slaves; but
this was restricted under the Empire, and in
all Christian nations the authority of the father
is treated, like all power, as a trust. The child,
like the father himself, belongs to the state,
and to the state the father is answerable for
the use he makes of his authority. The law
fixes the age of majority, when the child is
completely emancipated; and even during his
nonage, takes him from the father and places
him under guardians, in case the father is incompetent to fulfil or grossly abuses his trust.
This is proper, because society contributes to
the life of the child, and has a right as well as
an interest in him. Society, again, must suffer
if the child is allowed to grow up a worthless
vagabond or a criminal; and has a right to intervene, both in behalf of itself and of the
child, in case his parents neglect to train him
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,
or are training him up to be a liar, a thief, a
drunkard, a murderer, a pest to the community.
Hotw, then, base the right of society on the
right of the father, since, in point of fact, the
41 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
right of society is paramount to the right of the
parent?
But even waiving this, and granting what is
not the fact, that the authority of the father is
absolute, unlimited, it cannot be the ground
of the right of society to govern. Assume the
parental right to be perfect and inseparable
from the parental relation, it is no right to
govern where no such relation exists.  Nothing
true, real, solid in government can be founded
on what Carlyle calls a " sham." The statesman,
if worthy of the name, ascertains and conforms to the realities, the verities of things;
and all jurisprudence that accepts legal fictions
is imperfect, and even censurable. The presumptions or assumptions of law or politics must
have a real and solid basis, or they are inadmissible.  How, from the right of the father to
govern his own child, born from his loins, con.
clude his right to govern one not his child?
Or how, from my right to govern my  child,
conclude the right of society to found the state,
institute government, and exercise political au thority over its members?
42 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
CHAPTER IV.
ORIGIN Of G 0 VERNAMENT-CoNTINUED.
II. REJEcTING the patriarchal theory as untellable, and shrinking from asserting the divine
origin of government, lest they should favor
theocracy, and place secular society under the
control of the clergy, and thus disfranchise the
laity, modern political writers have sought to
render government purely human, and maintain that its origin is conventional, and that
it is founded in compact or agreement. Their
theory originated in the seventeenth century,
and was predominant in the last century and
the first third of the present.  It has been, and
perhaps is yet, generally accepted by American
politicians and statesmen, at least so far as they
ever trouble their heads with the question at
all, which it must be confessed is not far.
The moral theologians of the Church have
generally spoken of government as a social pact
or compact, and explained the reciprocal rights
and obligations of subjects and rulers by the
43 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC
general law of contracts; but they have never
held that government originates in a voluntary
agreement between the people and their rulers,
or between the several individuals composing
the community. They have never held that
government has only a conventional origin or
authority. They have simply meant, by the
social compact, the mutual relations and recip.
rocal rights and duties of princes and their
subjects, as implied in the very existence and
nature of civil society. Where there are rights
and duties on each side, they treat the fact, not
as an agreement voluntarily entered into, and
which creates them, but as a compact which
binds alike sovereign and subject; and in de.
termining whether either side has sinned or
not, they inquire whether either has broken
the terms of the social compact. They were
engaged, not with the question whence does
government derive its authority, but with its
nature, and the reciprocal rights and duties of
governors and the governed. The compact itself they held was not voluntarily formed by
the people themselves, either individually or
collectively, but was imposed by God, either
immediately, or mediately, through the law of
nature.  " Every man," says Cicero, "is born in
society, and remains there." They held the
44 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
same, and maintained that every one born into
society contracts by that fact certain obligations
to society, and society certain obligations to
him; for under the natural law, every one has
certain rights, as life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, and owes certain duties to society
for the protection and assistance it affords him.
But modern political theorists have abused
the phrase borrowed from the theologians, and
made it cover a political doctrine which they
would have been the last to accept. These
theorists or political speculators have imagined
a state of nature antecedently to civil society,
in which men lived without government, law,
or manners, out of which they finally came by
entering into a voluntary agreement with some
one of their number to be king and to govern
them, or with one another to submit to the rule
of the majority. Hobbes, the English materialist, is among the earliest and most distinguished
of the advocates of this theory. He held that
men lived, prior to the creation of civil society,
in a state of nature, in which all were equal,
and every one had an equal right to every
thing, and to take any thing on which he could
lay his hands and was strong enough to hold.
There was no law but the will of the strongest.
Hence, the state of nature was a state of con
45 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
tinual war.  At length, wearied and disgusted,
men sighed for peace, and, with one accord,
said to the tallest, bravest, or ablest among
them: Come, be our king, our master, our sovereign lord, and govern us; we surrender our
natural rights and our natural independence to
you, with no other reserve or condition than
that you maintain peace among us, keep us
from robbing and plundering one another or
cutting each other's throats.
Locke followed Hobbes, and asserted virtually
the same theory, but asserted it in the interests
of liberty, as Hobbes had asserted it in the interests of power.  Rousseau, a citizen of Geneva,
followed in the next century with his Contrat Socia, the text-book of the French revolutionistsalmost their Bible-and put the finishing stroke
to the theory. Hitherto the compact or agreement had been assumed to be between the governor and the governed; Rousseau supposes it to
be between the people themselves, or a compact
to which the people are the only parties. He
adopts the theory of a state of nature in which
men lived, antecedently to their forming themselves into civil society, without government or
law. All men in that state were equal, and
each was independent and sovereign proprietor
of himself. These equal, independent, sovereign
46 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
individuals met, or are held to have met, in
convention, and entere(t into a compact with
themselves, each with all, and all with each,
that they would constitute government, and
would each submit to the determination and
authority of the whole, practically of the fluctuating and irresponsible majority. Civil society,
the state, the government, originates in this
compact, and the government, as Mr. Jefferson
asserts in the Declaration of American Independence, "derives its just powers from the
consent of the governed."
This theory, as so set forth, or as modified by
asserting that the individual delegates instead
of surrendering his rights to civil society, was
generally adopted by the American people in
the last century, and is still the more prevalent
theory with those among them who happen to
have any theory or opinion on the subject. It
is the political tradition of the country. The
state, as defined by the elder Adams, is held to
be a voluntary association of individuals. Individuals create civil society, and may uncreate
it whenever they judge it advisable. Prior to
the Southern Rebellion, nearly every American
asserted with Lafayette, "the sacred right of
insurrection " or revolution, and sympathized
with insurrectionists, rebels, and revolutionists,
47 
THIE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
wherever they made their appearance.  Loyalty
was held to be tile correlative of royalty, treason
was regarded as a virtue, and traitors were
honored, feasted, and eulogized as patriots, ardent lovers of liberty, and champions of the
people. The fearful struggle of the nation
against a rebellion which threatened its very
existence may have changed this.
That there is, or ever was, a state of nature
such as the theory assumes, may be questioned.
Certainly nothing proves that it is, or ever was,
a real state. That there is a law of nature is
undeniable. All authorities in philosophy,
morals, politics, and jurisprudence assert it; the
state assumes it as its own immediate basis, and
the codes of all nations are founded on it; universal jurisprudence, the jug gentium of the Romans, embodies it, and the courts recognize
and administer it. It is the reason and conscience of civil society, and every state acknowledges its authority.   But the law of nature is
as much in force in civil society as out of it.
Civil law does not abrogate or supersede natural law, but presupposes it, and supports itself on it as its own ground and reason. As
the natural law, which is only natural justice
and equity dictated by the reason common to
all men, persists in the civil law, municipal or
48 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
international, as its informing soul, so does the
state of nature persist in the civil state, natural
society in civil society, which simply develops,
applies, and protects it. Man in civil society
is not out of nature, but is in it  is in his most
natural state; for society is natural to him, and
government is natural to society, and in some
form inseparable from it. The state of nature
under the natural law is not, as a separate state,
an actual state, and never was; but an abstraction, in which is considered, apart fromi the
concrete existence called society, what is derived immediately from the natural law.  But
as abstractions have no existence out of the
mind that forms them, the state of nature has
no actual existence in the world of reality as a
separate state.
But suppose with the theory the state of nature to have been a real and separate state, in
which men at first lived, there is great difficulty
in understanding how they ever got out of it.
Can a man divest uhimself of his nature, or lift
himself above it 2  Man  is in his nature, and
inseparable from it. If his primitive state was
his natural state, and if the political state is
supernatural, preternatural, or subnatural, how
passed he alone, by his own unaided powers,
from the former to the latter? The ancients,
4
49 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
who had lost the primitive tradition of creation, asserted, indeed, the primitive  man  as
springing from the earth, and leading a mere
animal life, living in caves or hollow trees, and
feeding on roots and nuts, without speech, without science, art, law, or sense of right and
wrong; but prior to the prevalence of the Epicurean philosophy, they never pretended that
man could come out of that state alone by his
own unaided efforts. They ascribed the invention of language, art, and science, the institution
of civil society, government, and laws, to the intervention of the gods.   It remained for the
Epicureans-who, though unable, like their
modern successors, the Positivists or Develop.
mentists, to believe in a first cause, believed in
effects without causes, or that things make or
take care of themselves-to assert that men
could, by -their own unassisted efforts, or by
the simple exercise of reason, come out of the
primitive state, and institute what in modemrn
times is called civilta', civility, or civilization.
The partisans of this theory of the state of
nature from which men have emerged by the
voluntary and deliberate formation of civil society, forget that if government is not the sole
condition, it is one of the essential conditions
of progress. The only progressive nations are
,I
50 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
civilized or republican nations. Savage and
barbarous tribes are unprogressive.  Ages on
ages roll over them without changing any
thing in their state; and Niebuhr has well remnarked with others, that history records no in.
stance of a savage tribe or people having become civilized by its own spontaneous or indigenous efforts.   If savagei tribes have ever
become civilized, it has been by influences from
abroad, by the aid of men already civilized,
through conquest, colonies, or missionaries;
never by their own indigenous efforts, nor even
by commerce, as is so confidently asserted in
this mercantile age. Nothing in all history indicates the ability of a savage people to pass of
itself from the savage state to the civilized.
But the primitive man, as described by Horace
in his Satirtes, and asserted by Hobbes, Locke,
Rousseau, and others, is far below the savage.
The lowest, most degraded, and most debased
savage tribe that has yet been discovered has at
least some rude outlines or feeble reminiscences
of a social state, of government, morals, law, and
religion, for even in superstition the most gross
there is a reminiscence of true religion; but the
people in the alleged state of nature have none.
The advocates of the theory deceive themselves by transporting into their imaginary
51
i 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
state of nature the views, habits, and capacities
of the civilized man. It is, perhaps, not difficult for men who have been civilized, who have
the intelligence, the arts, the affections, and the
habits of civilization, if deprived by some great
social convulsion of society, and thrown back
on the so-called state of nature, or cast away oni
some uninhabited island in the ocean, and cut
off from all intercourse with the rest of mnan..
kind, to reconstruct civil society, and re.establish and maintain civil government. They are
civilized men, and bear civil society in their
own life. But these are no representatives of
the primitive man in the alleged state of nature.   These primitive men have no  experience, no knowledge, no conception even of civilized life, or of any state superior to that in
which they have thus far lived.  How then
can they, since, on the theory, civil society has
no root in nature, but is a purely artificial creation, even conceive of civilization, much  less
realize it?
These theorists, as theorists always do, fail to
make a complete abstraction of the civilized
state, and conclude from what they feel they
could do in case civil society were broken up,
what men may do and have done in a state
of nature.  Men cannot divest themselves of
52
I
i 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
themselves, and, whatever their efforts to do
it, they think, reason, and act as they are.
Every writer, whatever else he writes, writes
himself. The advocates of the theory, to have
made their abstraction complete, should have
presented their primitive man as below the
lowest known savage, unprogressive, and in
himself incapable of developing any progressive
energy. Unprogressive, and, without foreign assistance, incapable of progress, how is it possible
for your primitive man to pass, by his own unassisted efforts, from the alleged state of nature
to that of civilization, of which he has no conception, and towards which no innate desire, no
instinct, no divine inspiration pushes him?
But even if, by some happy inspiration,
hardly supposable without supernatural intervention repudiated by the theory-if by some
happy inspiration, a rare individual should so far
rise above the state of nature as to conceive of
civil society and of civil government, how could
he carry his conception into execution?   Conceptionl is always easier than its realization, and
between the design and its execution there is
always a weary distance. The poetry of all
nations is a wail over unrealized ideals.  It is
little that even the wisest and most potent
statesman can realize of what he conceives to
53 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
be necessary for the state: political, legislative,
or judicial reforms, even when loudly demanded, and favored by authority, are hard to be
effected, and not seldom generations come and
go without effecting them. The republics of
Plato, Sir Thomas More, Campanella, HIarrington, as the communities of Robert Owen and
M. Cabet, remain Utopias, not solely because
intrinsically absurd, though so in fact, but
chiefly because they are innovations, have no
support in experience, and require for their
realization the modes of thought, habits, manners, character, life, which only their introduction and realization can supply. So to be able
to execute the design of passing from the supposed state of nature to civilization, the reformer would need the intelligence, the habits,
and characters in the public which are not possible without civilization itself. Some philosophers suppose men have invented language,
forgetting that it requires language to give the
ability to invent language.
Men are little moved by mere reasoning, however clear and convincing it may be. They are
moved by their affections, passions, instincts,
and habits.  Routine is more powerful with
them than logic. A few are greedy of novelties, and are always for trying experiments;
t
54 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
b)ut the great body of the people of all nations
have an invincible repugnance to abandon what
they know for what they know not. They are,
to a great extent, the slaves of their own vis
inertia, and will not make the necessary exertion to change their existing mode of life,
even for a better. Interest itself is powerless before their indolence, prejudice, habits, and
usages.  Never were philosophers more  ignorant of human nature than they, so numerous
in the last century, who imagined that men can
be always moved by a sense of interest, and
that enlightened self-interest, l'interet bien entendu, suffices to found and sustain the state.
No reform, no change in the constitution of
government or of society, whatever the advantages it may promise, can be successful, if introduced, unless it has its root or germ in the past.
Man is never a creator; he can only develop
and continue, because he is himself a creature,
and only a second cause. The children of Israel,
when they encountered the privations of the
wilderness that lay between them and the promised land flowing with milk and honey, fainted
in spirit, and begged Moses to lead them back
to Egypt, and permit them to return to slavery.
In the alleged state of nature, as the philosophers describe it, there is no germ of civ
55 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ilization, and the transition to civil society
would not be a development, but a complete
rupture with the past, and an entire new creation.  When  it is with the greatest difficulty
that necessary reforms are introduced in old and
highly civilized nations, and when it can seldom
be done at all without terrible political and
social convulsions, how can we suppose men
without society, and knowing nothing of it, can
deliberately, and, as it were, with "malice aforethought," found society?  Without government,
and destitute alike of habits of obedience and
habits of command, how can they initiate, establish, and sustain government?  To suppose
it, would be to suppose that men in a state of
nature, without culture, without science, without any of the arts, even the most simple and
necessary, are infinitely superior to the men
formed under the most advanced civilization.
Was Rousseau right in asserting civilization as
a fall, as a deterioration of the race?
But suppose the state of nature, even suppose
that men, by some miracle or other, can get
out of it and found civil society, the origin
of government as authority in compact is not
yet established. According to the theory, the
rights of civil society are derived from the
rights of the individuals who form or enter into
1 6 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the conmpact. But individuals cannot give what
they have not, and no individual has in himself
the right to govern another. By the law of
nature all men have equal rights, are equals,
and equals have no authority one over another.
Nor has an individual the sovereign right even
to himself, or the right to dispose of himself as
he pleases.  Man is not God, independent, selfexisting, and self-sufficing.  He is dependent,
and dependent not only on his Maker, but on
his fellow- men, on society, and even on nature,
or the material world.  That on which he depends, in the measure in which he depends on
it, contributes to his existence, to his life, and
to his wvell-being, and has, by virtue of its contribution, a right in him and to him; and hence
it is that nothing is more painfuli to the proud
spirit than to receive a favor that lays him
under an obligation to another. The right
of that on which man depends, and by communion with whilch he lives, limits his own
right over himself.
Man does not depend exclusively on society,
for it is not his only medium of communion
with God, and therefore its right to him is
neither absolute nor unlimited; but still he de.
pends on it, lives in it, and cannot live without
it. It has, then, certain rights over him, and
57 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
he cannot enter into any compact, league, or
alliance that society does not authorize, or at
least permit. These rights of society override
his rights to himself, and he can neither surrender them nor delegate them. Other rights, as
the rights of religion and property, which are
held directly from God and nature, and which
are independent of society, are included in what
are called the natural rights of man; and these
rights cannot be surrendered in forming civil
society, for they are rights of man only before
civil society, and therefore not his to cede, and
because they are precisely the rights that government is bound to respect and protect. The
compact, then, cannot be formed as pretended,
for the only rights individuals could delegate
or surrender to society to constitute the sum of
the rights of government are hers already, and
those which are not hers are those which cannot be delegated or surrendered, and in the free
and full enjoyment of which, it is the duty, the
chief end of government to protect each and
every individual.
The convention not only is not a fact, but individuals have no authority without society, to
meet in convention, and enter into the alleged
compact, because they are not independent, sov
ereign individuals. But pass over this: sup.
58 
ORIGCIN  OF G-OVEIRNMENT.
pose the convention, suppose the compact, it
must still be conceded that it binds and can
bind only those who voluntarily and deliberately enter into it. This is conceded by Mr.
Jefferson and the American Congress of 1776,
in the assertion that government derives its
"just powers from the consent of the governed."
This consent, as the matter is one of life and
death, must be free, deliberate, formal, explicit,
not simply an assumed, implied, or constructive
consent. It must be given personally, and not
by one for another without his express authority.
It is usual to infer the consent or the acceptance of the terms of the compact friom the
silence of the individual, and also from his continued residence in the country and submission
to its government. But residence is no evidence of consent, because it may be a matter
of necessity. The individual may be unable to
emigrate, if he would; and by what right can
individuals form an agreement to which I must
consent or else migrate to some strange land?
Can my consent, under such circumstances, even
if given, be any thing but a forced consent, a
consent given under duress, and therefore invalid?   Nothing can be inferred from  one's
silence, for he may have many reasons for being
59 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
silent besides approval of the government. He
may be silent because speech would avail nothing; because to protest might be dangerouscost him his liberty, if not his life; because he
sees and knows nothing better, and is ignorant
that he has any choice in the case; or because,
as very likely is the fact with the majority, he
has never for a moment thought of the matter,
or ever had his attention called to it, and has
no mind on the subject.
But however this may be, there certainly
must be excluded from the compact or obligation
to obey the government created by it all the
women of a nation, all the children too young to
be capable of giving their consent, and all who
are too ignorant, too weak of mind to be able
to understand the terms of the contract. These
several classes cannot be less than three-fourths
of the population of any country. What is to
be done with them?  Leave them without government? Extend the power of the government over them?  By what right?  Government derives its just powers from the consent
of the governed, and that consent they have
not given. Whence does one-fourth of the
population get its right to govern the other
three-fourths?
But what is to be done with the rights of
60 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
minorities?  Is the rule of unanimity to be
insisted on in the convention, and in the government, when it goes into operation?  Unanimity is impracticable, for where there are many
men there will be differences of opinion. The
rule of unanimity gives to each individual a veto
on the whole proceeding, which was the grand
defect of the Polish constitution. Each miembI)er of the Polish Diet, which included the
whole body of the nobility, had an absolute
veto, and could, alone, arrest the whole action
of the government. Will you substitute the
rule of the majority, and say the majority must
govern?  By what right?  It is agreed to in
the convention. Unanimously, or only by a
majority?  The right of the majority to have
their will is, on the social compact theory, a
conventional right, and therefore cannot come
into play before the convention is completed,
or the social compact is framed and accepted.
How, in settling the terms of the compact, will
you proceed?  By majorities?  But suppose a
minority objects, and demands two-thirds, threefourths, or four-fifths, and votes against the
majority rule, which is carried only by a simple plurality of votes, will the proceedings of
the convention bind the dissenting minority?
61 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC
What gives to the majority the right to govern
the minority who dissent from its action?
On the supposition that society has rights
not derived from individuals, and which are intrusted to the government, there is a good
reason why the majority should prevail within
the legitimate sphere of government, because
the majority is the best representative piacticable of society itself; and if the constitution
secures to minorities and dissenting individuals
their natural rights and their equal rights as
citizens, they have no just cause of complaint,
for the majority in such case has no power to
tyrannize over them or to oppress them.    But
the theory under examination denies that society
has any rights except such as it derives from
individuals who all have equal rights. According to it, society is itself conventional, and
created by free, independent, equal, sovereign
individuals. Society is a congress of sovereigns,
in which no one has authority over another, and
no one can be rightfully forced to submit to any
decree against his will. In such a congress the
rule of the majority is manifestly improper,
illegitimate, and invalid, unless adopted by
unanimous consent.
But this is not all. The individual is always
the equal of himself, and if the government
62 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
derives its powers from the consent of the
governed, he governs in the government, and
parts with none of his original sovereignty.
The government is not his master, but his agent,
as the principal only delegates, not surrenders,
his rights and powers to the agent. He is free
at any time he pleases to recall the powers he
has delegated, to give new instructions, or to
dismiss him. The sovereignty of the individual
survives the compact, and persists through all
the acts of his agent, the government. He
must, then, be free to withdraw from the compact whenever he judges it advisable.   Secession is perfectly legitimate if government is
simply a contract between equals.   The disaffected, the criminal, the thief the government
would send to prison, or the murderer it would
hang, would be very likely to revoke his consent, and to secede from the state. Any numher of individuals large enough to count a majority among themselves, indisposed to pay the
government taxes, or to perform the military
service exacted, might hold a convention, adopt
a secession ordinance, and declare themselves a
free, independent, sovereign state, and bid defiance to the tax-collector and the provost-marshal, and that, too, without forfeiting their
estates or changing their domicile.   Would
63 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the government employ military force to coerce
them back to their allegiance?  By what right?
Government is their agent, their creature, and
no man owes allegiance to his own agent, or
creature.
The compact could bind only temporarily,
and could at any moment be dissolved. Mr.
Jefferson saw this, and very consistently maintained that one generation has no power to bind
another; and, as if this was not enough, he
asserted the right of revolution, and gave it as
his opinion that in every nation a revolution
once in every generation is desirable, that is,
according to his reckoning, once every nineteen
years.  Thle doctrine that one generation has no
power to bind its successor is not only a logical
conclusion fromn the theory that governments
derive their just  powers  from  the gonsent
of the governed, since a generation cannot give
its consent before it is born, but is very con.
venient for a nation that has contracted a large
national debt; yet, perhaps, not so convenient to
the public creditor, since the new generation
may take it into its head not to assume or dischalrge the obligations of its predecessor, but to
repudiate them. No man, certainly, can contract for any one but himself; and how then can
the son be bound, without his own personal or
64 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
individual consent, freely given, by the obliga.
tions entered into by his father?
The social compact is necessarily limited to
the individuals who form it, and as necessarily,
unless renewed, expires with them. It thus
creates no state, no political corporation, which
survives in all its rights and powers, though
individuals die.   The state is on this theory a
voluntary association, and in principle, except
that it is not a secret society, in no respect differs from the Carbonari, or the Knights of the
Go]den Circle. When Orsini attempted to execute the sentence of death on the Emperor of the
French, in obedience to the order of the Carbonari, of which the Emperorwas a member, he was,
if the theory of the origin of government in compact be true, no more an assassin than was the
officer who executed on the gallows the rebel
spies and incendiaries Beal and Kennedy.
Certain it is that the alleged social compact
has in it no social or civil element.   It does not
and cannot create society. It can give only an
aggregation of individuals, and society is not an
aggregation nor even an organization of individuals. It is an organism, and individuals live
in its life as well as it in theirs. There is a
real living solidarity, which makes individuals
members of the social body, and members one
65 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
of another. There is no society without indi viduals, and there are no individuals without
society; but in society there is that which is not
individual, and is more  than all individuals.
The social compact is an attempt to substitute
for this real living solidarity, which gives to
society at once unity of life and diversity of
members, an artificial solidarity, a fictitious uni ty for a real unity, and membership by contract
for real living membership, a cork leg for that
which nature herself gives. Real government
has its ground in this real living solidarity, and
represents the social element, which is not indi vidual, but above all individuals, as man is above
men. But the theory substitutes a simple agency
for government, and makes each individual its
principal. It is an abuse of language to call this
agency a government. It has no one feature or
element of government.   It has only an artifi  cial unity, based on diversity; its authority is
only personal, individual, and in no sense a
public authority, representing a public will, a
public right, or a public interest. In no coun  try could government be adopted and sustained
if men were left to the wisdom or justness of
their theories, or in the general affairs of life
acted on them. Society, and government as rep  resenting society, has a real existence, life, facul
66 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
ties, and organs of its own, not derived or
derivable from individuals.   As well might it
be maintained that the human body consists in
and derives all its life from the particles of mat.
ter it assimilates from its food, and which are
constantly escaping, as to maintain that society
derives its life, or government its powers, from
individuals.   No  mechanical aggregation of
brute matter can make a living body, if there
is no living and assimilating principle within;
and no aggregation of individuals, however
closely bound together by pacts or oaths, can
make society where there is no informing
social principle that aggregates and assimilates
them to a living body, or produce that mystic
existence called a state or commonwealth.
The origin of government in the Contrat
Social supposes the nation to be a purely personal affair. It gives the government no territorial status, and clothes it with no territorial
rights or jurisdiction. The government that
could so originate would be, if any thing, a
barbaric, not a republican government. It has
only the rights conferred on it, surrendered or
delegated to it by individuals, and therefore, at
best, only individual rights. Individuals can
confer only such rights as they have in the sup.
posed state of nature. In that state there is
67 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
neither private nor public domain.  The earth
in that state is not property, and is open to the
first occupant, and the occupant can lay no
claim to any more than he actually occupies.
Whence, then, does government derive its territorial jurisdiction, and its right of eminent domain claimed by all national governments?
Whence its title to vacant or unoccupied lands?
How does any particular government fix its
territorial boundaries, and obtain the right to
prescribe who may occupy, and on what conditions, the vacant lands within those boundaries?  Whence does it get its jurisdiction of
navigable rivers, lakes, bays, and the seaboard
within its territorial limits, as appertaining to
its domain? Here are rights that it could not
have derived from individuals, for individuals
never possessed them in the so-called state of
nature. The concocters of the theory evidently
overlooked these rights, or considered them of
no importance. They seem never to have contemp]ated the existence of territorial states, or
the division of mankind into nations fixed to
the soil.  They seem not to have supposed
the earth could be appropriated; and, indeed,
many of their followers pretend that it cannot
be, and that the public lands of a nation are
open lands, and whoso chooses may. occupy
I
68 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
them, without leave asked of the national authority or granted.  The American people retain more than one reminiscence of the nomadic
and predatory habits of their Teutonic or Scythian ancestors before they settled on the banks
of the Don or the Danube, on the Northern
Ocean, in Scania, or came in contact with the
Gr,eco-Roman civilization.
Yet mankind are divided into nations, and
all civilized nations are fixed to the soil. The
territory is defined, and is the domain of the
state, from which all private proprietors hold
their title-deeds. Individual proprietors hold
under the state, and often hold more than they
occupy'; but it retains in all private estates the
eminent domain, and prohibits the alienation
of land to one who is not a citizen. It defends
its domain, its public unoccupied lands, and
the lands owned by private individuals, against
all foreign powers. Now whence, if government
has only the rights ceded it by individuals, does
it get this domain, and hold the right to treat
settlers on even its unoccupied lands as trespassers? In the state of nature the territorial
rights of individuals, if any they have, are restricted to the portion of land they occupy with
their rude culture, and with their flocks and
herds, and in civilized nations to what they
69 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
hold from the state, and, therefore, the right as
held and defended by all nations, and without
which the nation has no status, no fixed dwelling, and is and can be no state, could never
have been derived from individuals. The earliest notices of Rome show the city in possession of the sacred territory, to which the state
and all political power are attached. Whence
did Rome become a landholder, and the governing people  a territorial people?  Whence
does any nation become a territorial nation and
lord of the domain? Certainly never by the
cession of individuals, and hence no civilized
government ever did or could originate in the
so-called social compact.
70
,1 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
CHAPTER V.
ORIGIN OF GO VE.RNMENT-CoNTINUED.
III. TIE tendency of the last century was to
individualism; that of the present is to socialism. The theory of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
and Jefferson, though not formally abandoned,
and still held by many, has latterly been much
modified, if not wholly transformed.   Sovereignty, it is now maintained, is inherent in the
people; not individually, indeed, but collectively,
or the people as society. The constitution is
held not to be simply a compact or agreement
entered into by the people as individuals creating civil society and government, but a law ordained by the sovereign people, prescribing the
constitution of the state and defining its rights
and powers.
This transformation, which is rather going on
than completed, is, under one aspect at least, a
progress, or rather a return to the sounder principles of antiquity.   Under it government
ceases to be a mere agency, which must obtain
71 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the assassin's consent to be hung before it can
rightfully hang him, and becomes authority,
which is one and imperative. The people
taken collectively are society, and society is a
living organism, not a mere aggregation of individuals. It does not, of course, exist without
individuals, but it is something more than individuals, and has rights not derived from them,
and which are paramount to theirs. There is
more truth, and truth of a higher order, in this
than in the theory of the social compact. Individuals, to a certain extent, derive their life
from God through society, and so far they depend on her, and they are hers; she owns
them, and has the right to do as she will with
them. On this theory the state emanates from
society, and is supreme.   It coincides with
the ancient Greek and Roman theory, as expressed by Cicero, already cited. Man is born
in society and remains there, and it may be regarded as the source of ancient Greek and Roman patriotism, which still commands the admi.
ration of the civilized world. The state with
Greece and Rome was a living reality, and
loyalty a religion. The Romans held Rome
to be a divinity, gave her statues and altars,
and offered her divine worship.   This was
superstition, no doubt, but it had in it an ele.
72 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
ment of truth. To every true philosopher there
is something divine in the state, and truth
in all theories. Society stands nearer to God,
and participates more immediately of the Divine essence, and the state is a more lively image
of God than the individual. It was man, the
generic and reproductive man, not the isolated
individual, that was created in the image and
likeness of his Maker. "And God created man
in his own image; in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them."
This theory is usually called the democratic
theory, and it enlists in its support the instincts,
the intelligence, the living forces, and active
tendencies of the age.   Kings, kaisers, and
hierarchies are powerless before it, and war
against it in vain. The most they can do is to
restrain its excesses, or to guard against its
abuses. Its advocates, in returning to it, sometimes revive in its name the old pagan super.
stition. Not a few of the European democrats
recognize in the earth, in heaven, or in hell, no
power superior to the people, and say not only
people.king, but people-God. They say absolutely, without any qualification, the voice of
the people is the voice of God, and make their
will the supreme law, not only in politics, but
in religion, philosophy, morals, science, and the
73
0 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
arts.   The people not only found  the state,
but also the church. They inspire or reveal
the truth, ordain or prohibit worships, judge of
doctrines, and decide cases of conscience. Mazzini said, when at the head of the Roman Republic in 1848, the question of religion must
be remitted to the judgment of the people.
Yet this theory is the dominant theory of the
age, and is in all civilized nations advancing
with apparently irresistible force.
But this theory has its difficulties. Who are
the collective people that have the rights of
society, or, who are the sovereign people?  The
word people is vague, and in itself determines
nothing.  It may include a larger or a smaller
number; it may mean the political people, or
it may mean simply population; it may mean
peasants, artisans, shopkeepers, traders, merchants, as distinguished from the nobility;
hired laborers or workmen as distinguished from
their employer, or slaves as distinguished from
their master or owner. In which of these senses
is the word to be taken when it is said, "The
people are sovereign?"   The people are the
population or inhabitants of one and the same
country. That is something. But who or
what determines the country?  Is the country
the whole territory of the globe?   That will
74
'I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
not be said, especially since the dispersion of
mankind and their division into separate nations. Is the territory indefinite or undefined?
Then indefinite or undefined are its inhabitants,
or the people invested with the rights of society. Is it defined and its boundaries fixed?
Who has done it? The people. But who are
the people?  We  are as wise as we were at
starting. The logicians say that the definitioni
of idem per idem, or the same by the same, is
simply no definition at all.
The people are the nation, undoubtedly, if
you mean by the people the sovereign people.
But who are the people constituting the nation?
The sovereign people? This is only to revolve
in a vicious circle. The nation is the tribe or
the people living under the same regimen, and
born of the same ancestor, or sprung from the
same ancestor or progenitor. But where find a
nation in this the primitive sense of the word?
Migration, conquest, and intermarriage, have so
broken  up  and  intermingled  the primitive
races, that it is more than doubtful if a single
nation, tribe, or family of unmixed blood now
exists on the face of the earth.  A Frenchman,
Italian, Spaniard, German, or Englishman, may
have the blood of a hundred different races
coursing in his veins. The nation is the people
75 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
inhabiting the same country, and united under
one and the same government, it is further
answered. The nation, then, is not purely personal, but also territorial. Then, again, the
question comes up, who or what determines the
territory?  The government?  But not before
it is constituted, and it cannot be constituted
till its territorial limits are determined. The
tribe doubtless occupies territory, but is not
fixed to it, and derives no jurisdiction from it,
and therefore is not territorial.  But a nation,
in the modern or civilized sense, is fixed to the
territory, and derives from it its jurisdiction,
or sovereignty; and, therefore, till the territory is determined, the nation is not and cannot
be determined.
The question is not an idle question. It is
one of great practical importance; for, till it
is settled, we can neither determine who are
the sovereign people, nor who are united under
one and the same government. Laws have no
extra-territorial force, and the officer who should
attempt to enforce the national laws beyond the
national territory would be a trespasser. If the
limits are undetermined, the government is not
territorial, and can claim as within its jurisdiction only those who choose to acknowledge its
authority. The importance of the question has
76
6
i! 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
been recently brought home to the American
people by the secession of eleven or more
States from the Union. Were these States a part
of the American nation, or were they not?
Was the war which followed secession, and
which cost so many lives and so much treasure,
a civil war or a foreign war? Were the secessionists traitors and rebels to their sovereign,
or were they patriots fighting for the liberty
and independence of their country and the
right of self-government?  All on both sides
agreed that the nation is sovereign; the dispute
was as to the existence of the nation itself, and
the extent of its jurisdiction. Doubtless, when
a nation has a generally recognized existence as
an historical fact, most of the difficulties in determining who are the sovereign people can be
got over; but the question here concerns the
institution of government, and determining who
constitute society and have the right to meet
in person, or by their delegates in convention,
to institute it.  This question, so important,
and at times so difficult, the theory of the
origin of government in the people collectively,
or the nation, does not solve, or furnish any
means of solving.
But suppose this difficulty surmounted, there
is still another, and a very grave one, to over
77 
TiE A3~ERICAN REPUBLIC.
come.   The theory assumes that the people
collectively, "in their own native right and
might," are sovereign.   According to it the
people are ultimate, and free to do whatever
they please.   This sacrifices individual freedom. The' origin of government in a compact
entered into by individuals, each with all and
all with each, sacrificed the rights of society,
and assumed each individual to be in himself
an independent sovereignty. If logically carried
out, there could be no such crime as treason,
there could be no state, and no public authori.
ty. This new theory transfers to society the
sovereignty which that asserted for the individual, and asserts social despotism, or the absolutism of the state. It asserts with sufficient
energy public authority, or the right of the
people to govern; but it leaves no space for
individual rights, which society must recognize,
respect, and protect. This was the grand defect of the ancient Grseco.Roman civilization.
The historian explores in vain the records of
the old Greek and Roman republics for any
recognition of the rights of individuals not
held as privileges or concessions from the state.
Society recognized no limit to her authority,
and the state claimed over individuals all the
authority of the patriarch over his household,
78
i. 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the chief over his tribe, or the absolute monarch over his subjects. The direct and indirect
influence of the body of freemen admitted to a
voice in public affairs, in determining the resolutions and action of the state, no doubt tempered in practice to some extent the authority of
the state, and prevented acts of gross oppression;
but in theory the state was absolute, and the
people individually were placed at the mercy
of the people collectively, or, rather, the majority of the collective people.
Under  ancient  republicanism,  there were
rights of the state and rights of the citizen,
dut no rights of man, held independently of
society, and not derived from God through the
state. The recognition of these rights by mod.
ern society is due to Christianity: some say to
the barbarians, who overthrew the Roman empire; but this last opinion is not well founded.
The barbarian chiefs and nobles had no doubt
a lively sense of personal freedom and independence, but for themselves only. They had
no conception of personal freedom as a general or
universal right, and men never obtain universal
principles by generalizing particulars. They
may give a general truth a particular application, but not a particular truth-understood
to be a particular truth-a general or universal
79 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
application. They are too good logicians for
that. The barbarian individual freedom and
personal independence was never generalized
into the doctrine of the rights of man, any
more than the freedom of the master has been
generalized into the right of his slaves to be
free. The doctrine of individual freedom before the state is due to the Christian relig.
ion, which asserts the dignity and worth of
every human soul, the accountability to God
of each man for himself, and lays it down as
law for every one that God is to be obeyed
rather than men.   The church practically denied the absolutism of the state, and asserted
for every man rights not held from the state, in
converting the empire to Christianity, in defiance of the state authority, and the imperial
edicts punishing with death the profession of the
Christian faith. In this she practically, as well
as theoretically, overthrew state absolutism, and
infused into modern society the doctrine that
every individual, even the lowest and meanest,
has rights which the state neither confers nor
can abrogate; and it will only be by extinguishing in modern society the Christian faith, and
obliterating all traces of Christian civilization,
that state absolutism can be revived with more
than a partial and temporary success.
I
i
s0
(I
I
f 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMIENT.
The doctrine of individual liberty may be
abused, and so explained as to deny the rights
of society, and to become pure individualism;
but no political system that runs to the opposite extreme, and absorbs the individual in
the state, stands the least chance of any general
or permanent success till Christianity is extinguished. Yet the assertion of principles which
logically imply state absolutism is not entirely
harmless, even in Christian countries. Error
is never harmless, and only truth can give a
solid foundation on which to build. Individualism and socialism are each opposed to the
other, and each has only a partial truth. The
state founded on either cannot stand, and society will only alternate between the two extremes. To-day it is torn by a revolution in favor
of socialism; to-morrow it will be torn by another in favor of individualism, and without
effecting any real progress by either revolution.
Real progress can be secured only by recognizing and building on the truth, not as it exists
in our opinions or in our theories, but as it
exists in the world of reality, and independent
of our opinions.
Now, social despotism or state absolutism is
not based on truth or reality.   Society has
certain rights over individuals, for she is a
6
81 
TiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
medium  of their communion with  God, or
through which they derive life from God, the
primal source of all life; but she is not the
only medium of man's life.  Man, as was said
in the beginning, lives by communion with
God, and he communes with God in the cre.
ative act and the Incarnation, through his kind,
and  through  nature.   This  threefold  communion gives rise to three institutions-religion or the church, society or the state, and
property. The life that man derives from God
through religion and property, is not derived
from him through society, and consequently so
much of his life he holds independently of society; and this constitutes his rights as a man
as distinguished from his rights as a citizen.
In relation to society, as not held from God
through her, these are termed his natural rights,
which she must hold inviolable, and government protect for every one, whatever his complexion or his social position. These rightsthe rights of conscience and the rights of property, with all their necessary implications —are
limitations of the rights of society, and the individual has the right to plead them against
the state. Society does not confer them, and
it cannot take them away, for they are at least
as sacred and as fundamental as her own.
82
i
1,
1 
i
But even this limitation of popular sovereignty is not all. The people can be sovereign
only in the sense in which they exist and act.
The people are not God, whatever some theorists may pretend-are not independent, selfexistent, and self-sufficing. They are as dependent collectively as individually, and therefore
can exist and act only as second cause, never as
first cause. They can, then, even in the limited
sphere of their sovereignty, be sovereign only
in a secondary sense, never absolute sovereign
in their own independent right. They are sovereign only to the extent to which they impart
life to the individual members of society, and
only in the sense in which she imparts it, or is
its cause. She is not its first cause or creator,
and is the medial cause or medium through
which they derive it from God, not its efficient
cause or primary source. Society derives her
own life from God, and exists and acts only as
dependent on him. Then she is sovereign over
individuals only as dependent on God. Her
dominion is then not original and absolute, but
secondary and derivative.
This third theory does not err in assuming
that the people collectively are more than the
people individually, or in denying society to be
a mere aggregation of individuals with no life,
83
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT. 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
and no rights but what it derives from them;
nor even in asserting that the people in the
sense of society are sovereign, but in asserting
that they are sovereign in their own native or
underived right and might.  Society has not in
herself the absolute right to govern, because
she has not the absolute dominion either of herself or her members. God gave to man dominion over the irrational creation, for he made
irrational creatures for man; but he never gave
him either individually or collectively the dominion over the rational creation. The the.
ory that the people are absolutely sovereign
in their own independent right andmight, as
some zealous democrats explain it, asserts the
fundamental principle of despotism, and all despotism is false, for it identifies the creature with
the Creator. No creature is creator, or has the
rights of creator, and consequently no one in
his own right is or can be sovereign. This
third theory, therefore, is untenable.
IV. A still more recent class of philosophers,
if philosophers they may be called, reject the origin of government in the people individually
or collectively. Satisfied that it has never been
instituted by a voluntary and deliberate act of
the people, and confounding g')vernment as a
84
k 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
fact with government as authority, maintain
that government is a spontaneous development
of nature. Nature develops it as the liver secretes bile, as the bee constructs her cell, or the
beaver builds his dam. Nature, working by
her own laws and inherent energy, develops society, and society develops government.  That
is all the secret. Questions as to the origin of
government or its rights, beyond the simple positive fact, belong to the theological or metaphlysical stage of the development of nature, but
are left behind when the race has passed beyond that stage, and has reached the epoch of
positive science, in which all, except the positive fact, is held to be unreal and non-existent.
Government, like every thing else in the universe, is simply a positive development of nature. Science explains the laws and conditions
of the development, but disdains to ask for its
origin or ground in any order that transcends
the changes of the world of space and time.
These philosophers profess to eschew all
theory, and yet they only oppose theory to
theory. The assertion that reality for the human mind is restricted to the positive facts of
the sensible order, is purely theoretic, and is
any thing but a positive fact. Principles are as
really objects of science as facts, and it is only
85 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
in the light of principles that facts themselves
are intelligible. If the human mind had no
science of reality that transcends the sensible
order, or the positive fact, it could have no
science at all. As things exist only in their
principles or causes, so can they be known only
in their principles and causes; for things can be
known only as they are, or as they really exist.
The science that pretends to deduce principles
from particular facts, or to rise from the fact by
way of reasoning to an order that transcends
facts, and in which facts have their origin, is
undoubtedly chimerical, and as against that the
positivists are unquestionably right. But to
maintain that man has no intelligence of any
thing beyond the fact, no intuition or intellectual apprehension of its principle or cause, is
equally chimerical. The human mind cannot
have all science, but it has real science as far as
it goes, and real science is the knowledge of
things as they are, not as they are not. Sensible facts are not intelligible by themselves, because they do not exist by themselves; and if
the human mind could not penetrate beyond
the individual fact, beyond the mimetic to the
methexic, or transcendental principle, copied or
imitated by the individual fact, it could never
know the fact itself. The error of modern
86
i
i 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
philosophers, or philosopherlings, is in supposing
the principle is deduced or inferred from the
fact, and in denying that the human mind has
direct and immediate intuition of it.
Something that transcends the sensible order
there must be, or there could be no development; and if we had no scienceof it, we could
never assert that development is development,
or scientifically explain the laws and conditions
of development. Development is explication,
and supposes a germ which precedes it, and is
not itself a development; and development, however far it may be carried, can never do more
than realize the possibilities of the germ. Development is not creation, and cannot supply its
own germ. That at least must be given by the
Creator, for from nothing nothing can be developed. If authority has not its germ in nature,
it cannot be developed from nature spontaneously or otherwise. All government has a
governing will; and without a will that coin.
mands, there is no government; and nature has
in her spontaneous developments no will, for
she has no personality. Reason itself, as distinguished from will, only presents the end and
the means, but does not govern; it prescribes a
rule, but cannot ordain a law. An imperative
will, the will of a superior who has the right to
87 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
command what reason dictates or approves, is
essential to government; and that will is not
developed from nature, because it has no germ
in nature. So something above and beyond
nature must be asserted, or government itself
cannot be asserted, even  as a development.
Nature is no mnore self-sufficing than are the
people, or than is the individual man.
No  doubt there is a natural law, which is
law in the proper sense of the word law; but
this is a positive law under which nature is
placed by a sovereign above herself, and is
never to be confounded with those laws of nature so-called, according to which she is productive as second cause, or produces her effects,
which are not properly laws at all. Fire burns,
water flows, rain falls, birds fly, fishes swim,
food nourishes, poisons kill, one substance has
a chemical affinity for another, the needle points
to the pole, by a natural law, it is said; that is,
the effects are produced by an inherent and
uniform natural force. Laws in this sense are
simply physical forces, and are nature herself.
The natural law, in an ethical sense, is not a
physical law, is not a natural force, but a law
imposed by the Creator on all moral creatures,
that is, all creatures endowed with reason and
free-will, and is called natural because promul
i
88
L
~ 11 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
gated in natural reason, or the reason common
and essential to all moral creatures. This is
the moral law. It is what the French call le
deioit naturel, natural right, and, as the theologians teach us, is the transcript of the eternal
law, the eternal will or reason of God. It is
the foundation of all law, and all acts of a state
that contravene it are, as St. Augustine maintains, violences rather than laws. The moral
law is no development of nature, for it is above
nature, and is imposed on nature. The only
development there is about it is in our understanding of it.
There is, of course, development in nature,
for nature considered as creation has been
created in germ, and is completed only in successive developments.   Hence  the origin of
space and time.   There would have been no
space if there had been no external creation,
and no time if the creation had been completed
externally at once, as it was in relation to the
Creator. Ideal space is simply the ability of
God to externize his creative act, and actual
space is the relation of coexistence in the things
created; ideal time is the ability of God to
create existences with the capacity of being
completed by successive developments, and actual time is the relation of these in the order of
89 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
succession, and when the existence is completed
or consummated development ceases, and tiume
is no more.  In relation to himself the Creator's
works are complete from the first, and hence
with him there is no time, for there is no succession. But in relation to itself creation is incomplete, and there is room for development,
which may be continued till the whole possibility of creation is actualized. Here is the foundation of what is true in the modern doctrine
of progress. Man is progressive, because the
possibilities of his nature are successively unfolded and actualized.
Development is a fact, and its laws and conditions may be scientifically ascertained and
defined.  All generation is development, as is
all growth, physical, moral, or intellectual. But
every thing is developed in its own order, and
after its kind. The Darwinian theory of the
development of species is not sustained by
science.   The  development starts from  the
germ, and in the germ is given the law or principle of the development. From the acorn is
developed the oak, never the pine or the linden. Every kind generates its kind, never another. But no development is, strictly speaking, spontaneous, or the result alone of the inherent energy or force of the germ developed.
LI
I
90
II 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
There is not only a solidarity of race, but in
some sense of all races, or species; all created
things are bound to their Creator, and to one
another. One and the same law or principle
of life pervades all creation, binding the universe together in a unity that copies or imitates
the unity of the Creator. No creature is isolated
from the rest, or absolutely independent of
others. All are parts of one stupendous whole,
and each depends on the whole, and the whole
on each, and each on each. All creatures are
members of one body, and members one of
another. The germ of the oak is in the acorn,
but the acorn left to itself alone can never grow
into the oak, any more than a body at rest can
place itself in motion. Lay the acorn away in
your closet, where it is absolutely deprived of
air, heat, and moisture, and in vain will you
watch for its germination. Germinate it cannot
without  some  external  influence,  or  communion, so to speak, with the elements from
which it derives its sustenance and support.
There can be no absolutely spontaneous development. All things are doubtless active,
for nothing exists except in so far as it is an active force of some sort; but only God himself
alone suffices for his own activity. All created things are dependent, have not their being
91 
THE AMERICAN RBPUBLIC.
in themselves, and are real only as they par.
ticipate, through the creative act, of the Divine
being. The germ can no more be developed
than it could exist without God, and no more
develop itself than it could create itself. What
is called the law of development is in the germ;
but that law or force can operate only in conjunction with another force or other forces.
All development, as all growth, is by accretion
or assimilation. The assimilating force is, if
you will, in the germ, but the matter assimilated comes and must come from abroad.
Every herdsman knows it, and knows that to
rear his stock he must supply them with appropriate food; every husbandman knows it,
and knows that to raise a crop of corn, he must
plant the seed in a soil duly prepared, and
which will supply the gases needed for its
germination, growth, flowering, bolling, and
ripening. In all created things, in all things
not complete in themselves, in all save God,
in whom there is no development possible, for
He is, as say the schoolmen, most pure act, in
whom there is no unactualized possibility, the
same law holds good. Development is always
the resultant of two factors, the one the thing
itself, the other some external force co-operating with it, exciting it, and aiding it to act.
92 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
Hence the prcemotio phygica of the Thomists,
and the prcevenient and adjuvant grace of the
theologians, without which no one can begin
the Christian life, and which must needs be
supernatural when the end is supernatural.
The principle of life in all orders is the same,
and human activity no more suffices for itself
in one order than in another.
Here is the reason why the savage  tribe
never rises to a civilized state without coinmunion in some form with a people already
civilized, and why there is no moral or intel
lectual development and progress without education and instruction, consequently without
instructors and educators. Hence the value
of tradition; and hence, as the first man could
not instruct himself, Christian theologians, with
a deeper philosophy than is dreamed of by the
sciolists of the age, maintain that God himself
was man's first teacher, or that he created
Adam a full-grown man, with all his faculties
developed, complete, and in full activity. Hence,
too, the heathen mythologies, which  always
contain some elements of truth, however they
may distort, mutilate, or travesty them, make
the gods the first teachers of the human race,
and ascribe to their instruction even the most
simple and ordinary arts of every-day life.
93 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
The gods teach men to plough, to plant, to
reap, to work in iron, to erect a shelter from
the storm, and to build a fire to warm them
and to cook their food. The common sense,
as well as the common traditions of mankind,
refuses to accept the doctrine that men are developed without foreign aid, or progressive
without divine assistance. Nature of herself
can no more develop government than it can
language. There can be no language without
society, and no society without language.
There can be no government without society,
and no society without government of some
sort.
But even if nature could spontaneously develop
herself, she could never develop an institution
that has the right to govern, for she has not herself that right. Nature is not God, has not created us, therefore has not the right of property
in us. She is not and cannot be our sovereign.
We belong not to her, nor does she belong to herself, for she is herself creature, and belongs to
her Creator. Not being in herself sovereign,
she cannot develop the right to govern, nor can
she develop government as a fact, to say nothing of its right, for government, whether we
speak of it as fact or as authority, is distinct
from that which is governed; but natural de
94
I
! 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
velopments are nature, and indistinguishable
from her. The governor and the governed, the
restrainer and the restrained, can never as such
be identical.   Self-government, taken strictly,
is a contradiction in terms. When an individual is said to govern himself, he is never
understood to govern himself in the sense in
which he is governed. He by his reason and
will governs or restrains his appetites and passions. It is man as spirit governing man as
flesh, the spiritual mind governing the carnal
mind.
Natural developments cannot in all cases be
even allowed to take their own course without
injury to nature herself.  "Follow nature "is an
unsafe maximu, if it means, leave nature to develop herself as she will, and follow thy natural
inclinations. Nature is good, but inclinations
are frequently bad. All our appetites and passions are given us for good, for a purpose useful
and necessary to individual and social life, but
they become morbid and injurious if indulged
without restraint. Each has its special object,
and naturally seeks it exclusively, and thus
generates discord and war in the individual,
which immediately find expression in society,
and also in the state, if the state be a simple
natural development. The Christian maxim,
95 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Deny thyself, is far better than the Epicurean
maxim, Enjoy thyself, for there is no real en.
joyment without self-denial. There is deep
philosophy in Christian asceticism, as the Positivists themselves are aware, and even insist.
But Christian asceticism aims not to destroy nature, as voluptuaries pretend, but to regulate,
direct, and restrain its abnormal developments
for its own good. It forces nature in her developments to submit to a law which is not in
her, but above her. The Positivists pretend
that this asceticism is itself a natural development, but that cannot be a natural development
which directs, controls, and restrains natural
development.
The Positivists confound nature at one time
with the law of nature, and at another the law
of nature with nature herself, and take what is
called the natural law to be a natural development.   Here is their mistake, as it is the mistake of all who accept naturalistic theories.
Society, no doubt, is authorized by the law of
nature to institute and maintain government.
But the law of nature is not a natural development, nor is it in nature, or any part of nature. It
is not a natural force which operates in nature,
and which is the developing principle of nature.
Do they say reason is natural, and the law of
96
k
i
I
iI
I
/ 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
nature is only reason?  This is not precisely the
fact. The natural law is law proper, and is
reason only in the sense that reason includes
both intellect and will, and nobody can pretend
that nature in her spontaneous developments
acts from intelligence and volition.  Reason,
as the faculty of knowing, is subjective and natural; but in the sense in which it is coincident
with the natural law, it is neither subjective
nor natural, but objective and divine, and is
God affirming himself and promulgating his
law to his creature, man. It is, at least, an immediate participation of the divine light, by
which He reveals himself and His will to the
human understanding, and is not natural, but
supernatural, in the sense that God himself is
supernatural. This is wherefore reason is law,
and every man is bound to submit or conform
to reason.
That legitimate governments are instituted
under the natural law is frankly conceded, but
this is by no means the concession of government as a natural development. The reason
and will of which the natural law is the expression are the reason and will of God. The
natural law is the divine law as much as the
revealed law itself, and equally obligatory. It
is not a natural force developing itself in na
8
97 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ture, like the law of generation, for instance, and
therefore proceeding from God as first cause,
but it proceeds from God as final cause, and is
therefore, theological, and strictly a moral law,
founding moral rights and duties. Of course,
all morality and all legitimate government rest
on this law, or, if you will, originate in it. But
not therefore in nature, but in the Author of nature. The authority is not the authority of nature, but of Him who holds nature in the hollow of His hand.
V. In the seventeenth century a class of political writers who very well understood that no
creature, no man, no number of men, not even
nature herself, can be inherently sovereign,
defended the opinion that governments are
founded, constituted, and clothed with their
authority by the direct and express appointment of God himself.  They denied that rulers
hold their power from the nation; that, however
oppressive may be their rule, that they are justiciable by any huiman tribunal, or that power,
except by the direct judgment of God, is
amissible. Their doctrine is known in history
as the doctrine of "the divine right of kings,
and passive obedience." All power, says St.
Paul, is from God, and the powers that be are
ordained of God, and to resist them is to resist
98
i
i 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the ordination of God. They must be obeyed
for conscience' sake.
It would, perhaps, be rash to say that this
doctrine lad never been broached before the
seventeenth century, but it received in that
century, and chiefly in England, its fullest and
most systematic developments. It was patron.
ized by the Anglican divines, asserted by James
I. of England, and lost the Stuarts the crown
of three kingdoms. It crossed the Channel,
into France, where it found a few hesitating
and stammering defenders among Catholics,
under Louis XIV., but it has never been very
generally held, though it has had able and zeal.
ous supporters. In England it was opposed by
all the Presbyterians, Puritans, Independents,
and Republicans, and was forgotten or abandoned by the Anglican divines themselves in
the Revolution of 1688, that expelled James II.
antd crowned William and Mary.  It was ably
refuted by the Jesuit Suarez in his reply
to a Remonstrance for  the  Divine  Right
of Kfings by the James I.; and a Spanish
monk who had asserted it in Madrid, under
Philip II., was compelled by the Inquisition to
retract it publicly in the place where he had
asserted it. All republicans reject it, and the
Church has never sanctioned it. The Sovereign
99
*    *                       *.'".  v  
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Pontiffs have claimed and exercised the right to
deprive princes of their principality, and to absolve their subjects from the oath of fidelity.
Whether the Popes rightly claimed and exercised that power is not now the question; but
their having claimed and exercised it proves
that the Church does not admit the inamissibility of power and passive obedience; for the
action of the Pope was judicial, not legislative.
The Pope has never claimed the right to depose
a prince till by his own act he has, under the
moral law or the constitution of his state, forfeited his power, nor to absolve subjects firom
their allegiance till their oath, according to its
true intent and meaning, has ceased to bind.
If the Church has always asserted with the
Apostle there is no power but frdm God —on
estpotestas nisi a Deo-she has always through
her doctors maintained that it is a trust to be
exercised for the public good, and is forfeited
when persistently exercised in a contrary sense.
St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and Suarez all maintain that unjust laws are violences rather than
laws, and do not oblige, except in charity or pru.
dence, and that the republic may change its
magistrates, and even its constitution, if it sees
proper to do so.
That God, as universal Creator, is Sovereign
-''              *
100
I
i
i
I
i
i
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
Lord and proprietor of all created things or existences, visible or invisible, is certain; for the
maker  has the absolute right to the thing
made; it is his, and he may do with it ashe
will.  As he is sole creator, he alone hath dominion; and as he is absolute creator, he has
absolute dominion over all the things which he
has made.   The guaranty against oppression
is his own essential nature, is in the plenitude
of his own being, which is the plenitude of
wisdom and goodness.   He cannot contradict
himself, be other than he is, or act otherwise
than according to his own essential nature. As
he is, in his own eternal and immutable essence,
supreme reason and supreme good, his dominion
must  always  in its exercise  be  supremely
good and supremely reasonable, therefore supremely just and equitable. From him certainly is all power; he is unquestionably King
of kings, and Lord of lords. By him kings
reign and magistrates decree just things.  He
may, at his will, set up or pull down kings,
rear or overwhelm empires, foster the infant
colony, and make desolate the populous city.
All this is unquestionably true, and a simple
dictate of reason common to all men. But in
what sense is it true? Is it true in a supernat.
ural sense?  Or is it true only in the sense
101 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
that it is true that by him we breathe, perform
any or all of our natural functions, and in him
live, and move, and have our being?
Viewed in their first cause, all things are
the immediate creation of God, and are supernatural, and from the point of view of the first
cause the Scriptures usually speak, for the
great purpose and paramount object of the
sacred writers, as of religion itself, is to make
prominent the fact that God is universal creator,
and supreme governor, and therefore the first
and final cause of all things. But God creates
second causes, or substantial existences, capable
themselves of acting and producing effects in a
secondary sense, and hence he is said to be
cauna causarum, cause of causes.  What is
done by these second causes or creatures is done
eminently by him, for they exist only by his
creative act, and produce only by virtue of his
active presence, or effective concurrence.  What
he does through them or through their agency
is done by him, not immediately, but mediately,
and is said to be done naturally, as what he
does immediately is said to be done supernaturally. Natural is what God does through second causes, which he creates; supernatural is
that which he does by himself alone, without
their intervention or agency. Sovereignty, or
-. - - -
102
i
I
I! 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the right to govern, is in him, and he may at
his will delegate it to men either mediately or
immediately, by a direct and express appointment, or mediately through nature.   In the
absence of all facts proving its delegation direct
and express, it must be assumed to be mediate,
through second causes. The natural is always
to be presumed, and the supernatural is to be
admitted only on conclusive proof.
The people of Israel had a supernatural vocation, and they received their law, embracing
their religious and civil constitution and their
ritual directly from God at the hand of
Moses, and various individuals from time to
time appear to have been specially called to be
their judges, rulers, or kings.   Saul was  so
called, and so was David.  David and his line
appear, also, to have been called not only to
supplant Saul and his line, but to have been
supernaturally invested with the kingdom forever; but it does not appear that the royal
power with which David and his line were invested was inamissible.  They lost it in the
Babylonish captivity, and never afterwards recovered it. The Asmonean princes were of
another line, and when our Lord came the
sceptre was in the hands of Herod, an Idumean
or Edomite. The promise made to David and
105
k..,. v.)
Is i  s w   *.* 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
his house is generally held by Christian com.
mentators to have received its fulfllnent in the
everlasting spiritual royalty of the Messiah,
sprung through Mary from David's line.
The Christian Church is supernaturally con stituted and supernaturally governed, but the
persons selected to exercise powers supernaturally defined, from the Sovereign Pontiff down to
the humblest parish priest are selected and inducted into office through human agency. The
Gentiles very generally claimed to have received
their laws from the gods, but it does not appear, save in exceptional cases, that they claimed
that their princes were designated and held
their powers by the direct and express appointment of the god. Save in the case of the Jews,
and that of the Church, there is no evidence
that any particular government exists or ever
has existed by direct or express appointment,
or otherwise than by the action of the Creator
through second causes, or what is called his ordinary providence. Except David and his line,
there is no evidence of the express grant by the
Divine Sovereign to any individual or family,
class or caste of the government of any nation or
country.   Even those Christian princes who
professed to reign "by the grace of God," never
claimed that they received their principalities
104
II
.1
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
from God otherwise than through his ordinary
providence, and meant by it little more than
an acknowledgmnent of their dependence on
him, their obligation to use their power according to his law, and their accountability to him
for the use they make of it.
The doctrine is not favorable to human liberty, for it recognizes no rights of man in face
of civil society. It consecrates tyranny, and
makes God the accomplice of the tyrant, if we
suppose all governments have actually existed
by his express appointment. It puts the king
in the place of God, and requires us to worship
in himn the immediate representative of the Divine Being. Power is irresponsible and inamissible, and however it may be abused, or however corrupt and oppressive may be its exercise,
there is no human  redress.   Resistance to
power is resistance to God. There is nothing
for the people but passive obedience and unre
served submission. The doctrine, in fact, denies all human  government, and allows the
people no voice in the management of their
own affairs, and gives no place for human activity. It stands opposed to all republicanism,
and makes power an hereditary and indefeasible
right, not a trust which he who holds it may
forfeit, and of which he may be deprived if he
,buses it.
105 
TiE AMERIOAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER VI.
ORIGIN Op GO VERNMXENT CONCLUDED.
VI. THE theory which derives the right of
government from the direct and express appointment of God is sometimes modified so as
to mean that civil authority is derived from
God  through the spiritual authority.   The
patriarch combined in his person both authoiities, and was in his own household both priest
and king, and so originally was in his own
tribe the chief, and in his kingdom the king.
When the two offices became separated is not
known.  In the time of Abraham they were
still united.  Melchisedech, king of Salem, was
both priest and king, and the earliest historical
records of kings present them as offering sacrifices. Even the Roman emperor was Pontifex
Maximus as well as Imperator, but that was
so not because the two offices were held to be inseparable, but because they were both conferred
on the same person by the republic.  In Egypt,
in the time of Moses, the royal authority and
106
i
I, 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
the priestly were separated, and held by different persons. Moses, in his legislation for his
nation, separated them, and instituted a sacerdotal order or caste.   The heads of tribes and
the heads of families are, under his law,
princes, but not priests, and the priesthood is
conferred on and restricted to his own tribe of
Levi, and more especially the family of his own
brother Aaron.
The priestly office by its own nature is superior to the kingly, and in all primitive nations
with a separate organized priesthood, whether
a true priesthood or a corrupt, the priest is held
to be above the king, elects or establishes the
law by which is selected the temporal chief,
and inducts him into his office, as if he received
his authority from God through the priesthood.
The Christian priesthood is not a caste, and is
transmitted by the election of grace, not as
with the Israelites and all sacerdotal nations,
by natural generation. Like Hinl whose priests
they are, Christian priests are priests after the
order of Melchisedech, who was without priestly descent, without father or mother of the
priestly line. But in being priests after the
order of Melchisedech, they are both priests
and kings, as Melchisedech was, and as was
our Lord himself, to whom was given by his
107 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Father all power in heaven and in earth. The
Pope, or Supreme Pontiff, is the vicar of our
Lord on earth, his representative-the representative not only of him who is our invisible
High-Priest, but of him who is King of kings
and Lord of lords, therefore of both the priestly
and the kingly power.  Consequently, no one
can have any mission to govern in the state any
more than in the church, unless derived from
God directly or indirectly through the Pope or
Supreme Pontiff. Many theologians and canonists in the Middle Ages so held, and a few perhaps hold so still.  The bulls and briefs of
several Popes, as Gregory VII., Innocent Ill.,
Gregory IX., Innocent IV., and Boniface VIII.,
have the appearance of favoring it.
At one period the greater part of the mediaeval kingdoms and principalities were fiefs of the
Holy See, and recognized the Holy Father as
their suzerain. The Pope revived the imperial
dignity in the person of Charlemagne, and none
could claim that dignity in the Western world
unless elected and crowned by him, that is, unless elected directly by the Pope or by electors
designated by him, and acting under his author.
ity. There can be no question that the spiritual is superior to the temporal, and that the
temporal is bound in the very nature of things
I
108
I
f 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
to conform to the spiritual, and any law enacted
by the civil power in contravention of the law
of God is null and void from the beginning.
This is what Mr. Seward meant by the higher law,
a law higher even than the Constitution of the
United States. Supposing this higher law, and
supposing that kings and princes hold from God
through the spiritual society, it is very evident
that the chief of that society would have the
right to deprive them, and to absolve their subjects, as on several occasions he actually has
done.
But this theory has never been a dogma of
the Church, nor, to any great extent, except for
a brief period, maintained by theologians or
canonists. The Pope conferred the imperial
dignity on Charlemagne and his successors, but
not the civil power, at least out of the Pope's
own temporal dominions. The emperor of Germany was at first elected by the Pope, and
afterwards by hereditary electors designated or
accepted by him, but the king of the Germans
with the full royal authority could be elected
and enthroned without the papal intervention
or permission.  The suzerainty of the Holy See
over Italy, Naples, Aragon, Muscovy, England,
and other European states, was by virtue of
feudal relations, not by virtue of the spiritual au
109 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
thority of the Holy See or the vicarship of the
Holy Father.  The right to govern under feudalism was simply an estate, or property; and
as the church could acquire and hold property,
nothing prevented her holding fiefs, or her
chief from being suzerain. The expressions in
the papal briefs and bulls, taken in connection
with the special relations existing between the
Pope and emperor in the Middle Ages, and his
relations with other states as their feudal sover.
eign, explained by the controversies concerning
rights growing outof these relations, will be found
to give no countenance to the theory in question.
These relations really existed, and they gave
the Pope certain temporal rights in certain
states, even the temporal supremacy, as he has
still in what is left him of the States of the
Church; but they were exceptional or accidental
relations, not the universal and essential relations between the church and the state.  The
rights that grew out of these relations were
real rights, sacred and inviolable, but only
where and while the relations subsisted. They,
for the most part, grew out of the feudal system introduced into the Roman empire by its
barbarian conquerors, and necessarily ceased
with the political order in which they originated. Undoubtedly the church consecrated
110
i
II
f
k
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
civil rulers, but this did not imply that they
received their power or right to govern from
God through her; but implied that their per.
sons were sacred, and that violence to them
would be sacrilege; that they held the Christian faith, and acknowledged themselves bound
to protect it, and to govern their subjects justly,
according to the law of God.
The church, moreover, has always recognized
the distinction of the two powers, and although
the Pope owes to the fact that he is chief of the
spiritual society, his temporal principality, no
theologian or canonist of the slightest respectability would argue that he derives his rights
as temporal sovereign from his rights as pontiff.
His rights as pontiff depend on the express
appointment of God; his rights as temporal
prince are derived from the same source from
which other princes derive their rights, and are
held by the same tenure. Hence canonists have
maintained that the subjects of other states
may even engage in war with the Pope as prince,
without breach of their fidelity to him as pontiff or supreme visible head of the church.
The church not only distinguishes between
the two powers, but recognizes as legitimate,
governments that manifestly do not derive from
God through her. St. Paul enjoins obedience
111
I 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLTC.
to the Roman emperors for conscience' sake, and
the church teaches that infidels and heretics
may have legitimate government; and if she has
ever denied the right of any infidel or heretical
prince, it has been on the ground that the constitution and laws of his principality require
him to profess and protect the Catholic faith.
She tolerates resistance in a non-Catholic
state no more than in a Catholic state to the
prince; and if she has not condemned and cut
of from her communion the Catholics who in
our struggle have joined the Secessionists and
fought in their ranks against the United States,
it is because the prevalence of the doctrine of
State sovereignty has seemed to leave a reason.
able doubt whether they were really rebels
fighting against their legitimate sovereign or
not.
No doubt, as the authority of the church is
derived immediately from God in a supernatural
manner, and as she holds that the state derives
its authority only mediately from him, in a
natural mode, she asserts the superiority of her
authority, and that, in case of conflict between
the two powers, the civil must yield. But this
is only saying that supernatural is above natural.  But-and this is the important pointshe does not teach, nor permit the faithful to
112
I
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
hold, that the supernatural abrogates the natural, or in any way supersedes it. Grace, say
the theologians, supposes nature, gratia gupponit
naturam. The church in the matter of government accepts the natural, aids it, elevates it, and
is its firmest support.
VII. St. Augustine, St. Gregory Magnus, St.
Thomas, Bellarmin, Suarez, and the theologians generally, hold that princes derive their
power from God through the people, or that
the people, though not the source, are the medium of all political authority, and therefore
rulers are accountable for the use they make of
their power to both God and the people.
This doctrine agrees with the democratic
theory in vesting sovereignty in the people, instead of the king or the nobility, a particular
individual, family, class, or caste; and differs
from it, as democracy is commonly explained, in
understanding by the people, the people collectively, not individually-the organic people, or
people fixed to a given territory, not the people
as a mere population-the people in the republican sense of the word nation, not in the barbaric
or despotic sense; and inderiving the sovereignty
from God, from whom is all power, and except
from whom there is and can be no power, in
9
113 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
stead of asserting it as the underived and inde.
feasible right of the people in their "own native right and might." The people not being
God, and being only what philosophers call a
second cause, they are and can be sovereign
only in a secondary and relative sense.  It asserts the divine origin of power, while democracy asserts its human origin. But as, under
the law of nature, all men are equal, or have
equal rights as men, one man has and can have
in himself no right to govern another; and as
man is never absolutely his own, but always and
everywhere belongs to his Creator, it is clear
that no government originating in humanity
alone can be a legitimate government. Every
such government is founded on the assumption
that man is God, which is a great mistake-is,
in fact, the fundamental sophism which underlies every error and every sin.
The divine origin of government, in the
sense asserted by Christian theologians, is never
found distinctly set forth in the political writings of the ancient Greek and Roman writers.
Gentile philosophy had lost the tradition of
creation, as some modern philosophers, in socalled Christian nations, are fast losing it, and
were as unable to explain the origin of govern
ment as they were the origin of man himself.
114
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
Even Plato, the profoundest of all ancient phi.
losophers, and the most faithful to the traditionary wisdom of the race, lacks the conception of creation, and never gets above that of
generation and formation. Things are produced
by the Divine Being impressing his own ideas,
eternal in his own mind, on a preexisting matter, as a seal on wax. Aristotle teaches substantially the same doctrine. Things eternally
exist as matter and form, and all the Divine
Intelligence does, is to unite the form to the
matter, and change it, as the schoolmen say,
from  materia  infornmi  to materia formata.
Even the Christian Platonists and Peripatetics
never as philosophers assert creation; they
assert it, indeed, but as theologians, as a fact of
revelation, not as a fact of science; and hence it
is that their theology and their philosophy
never thoroughly harmonize, or at least are not
shown to harmonize throughout.
Speaking generally, the ancient Gentile philosophers were pantheists, and represented the
universe either as God or as an emanation
from God. They had no proper conception of
Providence, or the action of God in nature
through natural agencies, or as modern physicists say, natural laws. If they recognized the
action of divinity at all, it was a supernatural
115 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
or miraculous intervention of some god. They
saw no divine intervention in any thing naturally explicable, or explicable by natural laws.
Having no conception of the creative act, they
could have none of its immanence, or the active
and efficacious presence of the Creator in all his
works, even in the action of second causes
themselves.  Hence they could not assert the
divine origin of government, or civil authority,
without supposing it supernaturally founded,
and excluding all human and natural agencies
from its institution. Their writings may be
studied with advantage on the constitution of
the state, on the practical workings of different
forms of government, as well as on the practical
administration of affairs, but never on the origin
of the state, and the real ground of its authority.
The doctrine is derived from Christian theology, which teaches that there is no power except from God, and enjoins civil obedience as
a religious duty. Conscience is accountable to
God alone, and civil government, if it had only
a natural or human origin, could not bind it.
Yet Christianity makes the civil law, within its
legitimate sphere, as obligatory on conscience
as the divine law itself, and no man is blame.
less before God who is not blameless before the
state. No man performs faithfully his religious
116
i
tI
i 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
duties who neglects his civil duties, and hence
the law of the church allows no one to retire
from the world and enter a religious order, who
has duties that bind him or her to the family
or the state; though it is possible that the law
is not always strictly observed, and that individuals sometimes enter a convent for the sake
of getting rid of those duties, or the equally important duty of taking care of themselves. But
by asserting the divine origin of government,
Christianity consecrates civil authority, clothes
it with a religious character, and makes civil
disobedience, sedition, insurrection, rebellion,
revolution, civil turbulence of any sort or degree, sins against God as well as crimes against
the state. For the same reason she makes usurpation, tyranny, oppression of the people by
civil rulers, offences against God as well as
against society, and cognizable by the spiritual
authority.
After the establishment of the Christian
church, after its public recognition, and when
conflicting claims arose between the two powers
-the civil and the ecclesiastical-this doctrine of
the divine origin of civil government was abused,
and turned against the church with most disastrous consequences. While the Roman Empire of the West subsisted, and even after its
117 
TiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
fall, so long as the emperor of the East asserted
and practically maintained his authority in the
Exarchate of Ravenna and the Duchy of Rome,
the Popes comported themselves, in civil matters, as subjects of the Roman emperor, and set
forth no claim to temporal independence. But
when the emperor had lost Rome, and all his
possessions in Italy, had abandoned them, or
been deprived of them by the barbarians, and
ceased to make any efforts to recover them, the
Pope was no longer a subject, even in civil matters, of the emperor, and owed him no civil allegiance.  He became civilly independent of
the Roman Empire, and had only spiritual relations with it. To the new powers that sprang
up in Europe he appears never to have acknowledged any civil subjection, and uniformly asserted, in face of them, his civil as well as spiritual independence.
This civil independence the successors of
Charlemagne, who pretended to be the successors of the Roman Emperors of the West, and
called their empire the Holy Roman Empire, denied, and maintained that the Pope owed them
civil allegiance, or that, in temporals, the emperor was the Pope's superior. If, said the emperor, or his lawyers for him, the civil power is
from God, as it must be, since non est votestas
118
f
lk 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
nisi a.Deo, the state stands on the same footing
with the church, and the imperial power ema.
nates from as high a source as the pontifical.
The emperor is then as supreme in temporals as
the Pope in spirituals; and as the emperor is
subject to the Pope in spirituals, so must the
Pope be subject to the emperor in temporals.
As, at the time when the dispute arose, the temporal interests of churchmen were so interwoven with their spiritual rights, the pretensions of the emperor amounted practically to the
subjection in spirituals as well as temporals of
the ecclesiastical authority to the civil, and absorbed the church in the state, the reasoning
was denied, and churchmen replied: The Pope
represents the spiritual order, which is always
and everywhere supreme over the temporal,
since the spiritual order is the divine sover eignty itself. Always and everywhere, then, is
the Pope independent of the emperor, his su perior, and to subject him in any thing to the
emperor would be as repugnant to reason as to
subject the soul to the body, the spirit to the
flesh, heaven to earth, or God to man.
If the universal supremacy claimed for the
Pope, rejoined the imperialists, be conceded, the
state would be absorbed in the church, the au ton omy of civil society would be destroyed, and
119 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
civil rulers would have no functions but to do
the bidding of the clergy. It would establish a complete theocracy, or, rather, clerocracy,
of all possible governments the government
the most odious to mankind, and the most hostile to social progress. Even the Jews could
not, or would not, endure it, and prayed God
to give them a king, that they might be like
other nations.
In the heat of the controversy neither party
clearly and distinctly perceived the true state
of the question, and each was partly right and
partly wrong. The imperialists wanted room
for the free activity of civil society, the church
wanted to establish in that society the supremacy of the moral order, or the law of God,
without which governments can have no stability, and society no real well-being. The
real solution of the difficulty was always to
be found in the doctrine of the church herself, and had been given time and again by
her most approved  theologians.   The Pope,
as the visible head of the spiritual society, is,
no doubt, superior to the emperor, not precisely because he represents a superior order,
but because the church, of which he is the visible chief, is a supernafural institution, and holds
immediately from God; whereas civil society,
120
I
i
t 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
represented by the emperor, holds from God
only mediately, through second causes, or the
people. Yet, though derived from God only
through the people, civil authority still holds
from God, and derives its right from Him
through another channel than the church or
spiritual society, and, therefore, has a right, a
sacredness, which the church herself gives not,
and must recognize and respect. This she herself teaches in teaching that even infidels, as we
have seen, may have legitimate government,
and since, though she interprets and applies the
law of God, both natural and revealed, she
makes neither.
Nevertheless, the imperialists or the statists
insisted on their false charge against the Pope,
that he labored to found a purely theocratic or
clerocratic government, and finding themselves
unable to place the representative of the civil
society on the same level with the representative of the spiritual, or to emancipate the state
from the law of God while they conceded the
divine origin or right of government, they
sought to effect its independence by asserting
for it only a natural or purely human origin.
For nearly two centuries the most popular and
influential writers on government have rejected
the divine origin and ground of civil authority,
121 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
and excluded God from the state. They have
refused to look beyond second causes, and have
labored to derive authority from man alone.
They have not only separated the state from
the church as an external corporation, but from
God as its internal lawgiver, and by so doing
have deprived the state of her sacredness, inviolability, or hold on the conscience, scoffed at
loyalty as a superstition, and consecrated not
civil authority, but what is called "the right of
insurrection." Under their teaching the age
sympathizes not with authority in its efforts to
sustain itself and protect society, but with those
who conspire against it-the insurgents, rebels,
revolutionists seeking its destruction. The established government that seeks to enforce
respect for its legitimate authority and compel
obedience to the laws, is held to be despotic,
tyrannical, oppressive, and resistance to it to be
obedience to God, and a wild howl rings
through Christendom against the prince that
will not stand still and permit the conspirators
to cut his throat. There is hardly a government now in the civilized world that can sustain itself for a moment without an armed force
sufficient to overawe or crush the party or
parties in permanent conspiracy against it.
This result is not what was aimed at or de
122
a
0 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
sired, but it is the logical or necessary result of
the attempt to erect the state on atheistical
principles. Unless founded on the divine sovereignty, authority can sustain itself only by
force, for political atheism recognizes no right
but might. No doubt the politicians have
sought an atheistical, or what is the same thing,
a purely human, basis for government, in order
to secure an open field for human freedom and
activity, or individual or social progress. The
end aimed at has been good, laudable even,
but they forgot that freedom is possible only
with authority that protects it against license
as well as against despotism, and that there can
be no progress where there is nothing that is
not progressive. In civil society two things
are necessary-stability and movement. The hu.
man is the element of movement, for in it are pos sibilities that can be only successively actualized.
But the element of stability can be found only
in the divine, in God, in whom there is no un actualized possibility, who, therefore, is im.
movable, immutable, and eternal.   The doc trine that derives authority from God through
the people, recognizes in the state both of
these elements, and provides alike for stability
and progress.
This doctrine is not mere theory; it simply
123
r 
TiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
states the real order of things. It is not telling
what ought to be, but what is in the real order.
It only asserts for civil government the relation
to God which nature herself holds to him,
which the entire universe holds to the Creator.
Nothing in man, in nature, in the universe, is
explicable without the creative act of God, for
nothing exists without that act.  That God "in
the beginning created heaven and earth," is the
first principle of all science as of all existences,
in politics no  less than in theology.   God
and creation comprise  all that is or exists,
and creation, though distinguishable from God
as the act from the actor, is inseparable from
him, " for in Him we live and move and have
our being."  All creatures are joined to him
by his creative act, and exist only as through
that act they participate of his being. Through
that act he is immanent as first cause in all
creatures and in every act of every creature.
The creature deriving from his creative act can
no more continue to exist than it could begin
to exist without it. It is as bad philosophy as
theology, to suppose that God created the universe, endowed it with certain laws of devel.
opment or activity, wound it up, gave it a jog,
set it agoing, and then left it to go of itself.
It cannot go of itself, because it does not exist
124
i
L
t
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
of itself.  It did not merely not begin to exist,
but it cannot continue to exist, without the
creative act. Old Epicurus was a sorry philosopher, or rather, no philosopher at all. Providence is as necessary as creation, or rather,
Providence is only continuous creation, the
creative act not suspended or discontinued, or
not passing over from the creature and returning to God.
Through the creative act man participates of
God, and he can continue to exist, act, or live only
by participating through it of his divine being.
There is, therefore, something of divinity, so to
speak, in every creature, and therefore it is
that God is worshipped in his works without
idolatry. But he creates substantial existences
capable of acting as second causes. Ihence, in
all living things there is in their life a divine
element and a natural element; in what is called
human life, there are the divine and the human,
the divine as first and the human as second
cause, precisely what the doctrine of the great
Christian theologians assert to be the fact with
all legitimate or real government.   Government cannot exist without the efficatcious presence of God any more than man himself, and
men might as well attempt to build up a
world as to attempt to found a state without
125 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
God. A government founded on atheistical
principles were less than a castle in the air. It
would have nothing to rest on, would not be
even so much as "the baseless fabric of a
vision," and they who imagine that they really
do exclude God from their politics deceive themselves; for they accept and use principles which,
though they know it not, are God. What they
call abstract principles, or abstract forms of
reason, without which there were no logic, are
not abstract, but the real, living God himself.
Hence government, like man himself, participates of the divine being, and, derived from God
through the people, it at the same time participates of human reason and will, thus reconciling
authority with freedom, and stability with progress.
The people, holding their authority from God,
hold it not as an inherent right, but as a trust
from Him, and are accountable to Him for
it. It is not their own. If it were their own
they might do with it as they pleased, and no
one would have any right to call them to an account; but holding it as a trust from God, they
are under -his law, and bound to exercise it as
that law prescribes. Civil rulers, holding their
authority from God through the people, are accountable for it both to Him and to them.  If
126
.
i 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
they abuse it they are justiciable by the people
and punishable by God himself.
Here is the guaranty against tyranny, oppres.
sion, or bad government, or what in modern
times is called the responsibility of power. At
the same time the state is guarantied against
sedition, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, by
the elevation of the civic virtues to the rank of
religious virtues, and making loyalty a matter of
conscience. Religion is brought to the aid of
the state, not indeed as a foreign auxiliary, but
as integral in the political order itself Religion
sustains the state, not because it externally commands us to obey the higher powers, or to be
submissive to the powers that be, not because it
trains the people to habits of obedience, and
teaches them to be resigned and patient under
the grossest abuses of power, but because it and
the state are in the same order, and inseparable, though distinct, parts of one and the same
whole. The church and the state, as corporations or external governingbodies, are indeed separate in their spheres, and the church does not
absorb the state, nor does the state the church;
but both are from God, and both work to the
same end, and when each is rightly understood
there is no antithesis or antagonism between
them.  Men serve God in serving the state as
127 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
directly as in serving the church. He who dies
on the battle-field fighting for his country ranks
with him who dies at the stake for his faith.
Civic virtues are themselves religious virtues,
or at least virtues without which there are no
religious virtues, since no man who loves not
his brother does or can love God.
The guaranties offered the state or authority
are ample, because it has not only conscience,
moral sentiment, interest, habit, and the vis in,
ertia of the mass, but the whole physical force
of the nation, at its command. The individual
has, indeed, only moral guaranties against the
abuse of power by the sovereign people, which
may no doubt sometimes prove insufficient.
But moral guaranties are always better than
none, and there are none where the people are
held to be sovereign in their own native right
and might, organized or unorganized, inside or
outside of the constitution, as most modern democratic theorists maintain; since, if so, the will
of the people, however expressed, is the criterion of right and wrong, just and unjust, true
and false, is infallible and impeccable, and no
moral right'caii ever be pleaded against it;
they are accountable to nobody, and, let them
do what they please, they can do no wrong.
This would place the individual at the mercy
128
i
i 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNTMENT.
of the state, and deprive him of all right to
complain, however oppressed or cruelly treated.
This would establish the absolute despotism of
the state, and deny every thing like the natural rights of man, or individual and personal
freedom, as has already been shown.  Now as
men do take part in government, and as men,
either individually or collectively, are neither
infallible nor impeccable, it is never to be expected, under any possible constitution or form
of government, that authority wvill always be
wisely and justly exercised, that wrong will
sever be done, and the rights of individuals
:ever in any instance be infringed; but with
the clear understanding that all power is of
God, that the political sovereignty is vested in
the people or the collective body, that the civil
rulers hold from God through them and are responsible to Him through themn, and justiciable
by them, there is all the guaranty against the
abuse of power by the nation, the political or
organic people, that the nature of the case
admits.   The nation may, indeed, err or do
wrong, but in the way supposed you get in the
government all the available wisdom and virtue the nation has, and more is never, under
any form or constitution of government, prac.
ticable or to be expected.
10
129 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
It is a maximn with constitutional statesmen,
that "the king reigns, not governs."  The people, though sovereign under God, are not the
government. The government is in their name
and by virtue of authority delegated from God
through them, but they are not it, are not their
own ministers. It is only when the people forget this and undertake to be their own ministers and to manage their own affairs immediately by themselves instead of selecting agents
to do it for them, and holding their agents to a
strict account for their management, that they
are likely to abuse their power or to sanction
injustice. The nation may be misled or deceived for a moment by demagogues, those
popular courtiers, but as a rule it is disposed
to be just and to respect all natural rights.
The wrong is done by individuals who assume
to speak in their name, to wield their power,
and to be themselves the state. L'e'tat, c'est
mnoi, I am the state, said Louis XIV. of France,
and while that was conceded the French nation
could have in its government no more wisdom
or virtue than he possessed, or at least no more
than he could appreciate. And under his gov.
ernment France was made responsible for many
deeds that the nation would never have sanc tioned, if it had been recognized as the deposi.
I
130
I
I
I 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
tary of the national sovereignty, or as the French
state, and answerable to God for the use it
made of political power, or the conduct of its
government.
But be this as it may, there evidently can be
no physical force in the nation to coerce the nation itself in case it goes wrong, for if the sovereignty vests in the nation, only the nation can
rightly command or authorize the employment
of force, and all commissions must run in its
name. Written constitutions alone will avail
little, for they emanate from the people, who
can disregard them, if they choose, and alter
or revoke them at will. The reliance for the
wisdom and justice of the state must after all
be on moral guaranties. In the very nature of
the case there are and can be no other. But
these, placed in a clear light, with an intelligent
and religious people, will seldom be found insufficient. Hence the necessity for the protection, not of authority simply or chiefly, but of
individual rights and the liberty of religion and
intelligence in the nation, of the general under.
standing that the nation holds its power to
govern as a trust from God, and that to God
through the people all civil rulers are strictly
responsible.   Let the mass of the people in
any nation lapse into the ignorance and barba
131 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
rism of atheism, or lose themselves in that supreme sophism called pantheism, the grand
error of ancient as well as of modern gentilism,
and liberty, social or political, except that wild
kind of liberty, and perhaps not even that
should be excepted, which obtains among savages, would be lost and irrecoverable.
But after all, this theory does not meet all
the difficulties of the case. It derives sovereignty from God, and thus asserts the divine
origin of government in the sense that the
origin of nature is divine; it derives it from
God through  the people, collectively, or as
society, and therefore concedes it a natural,
human, and social element, which distinguishes
it from pure theocracy.  It, however, does NAot
explain howv authority comes from God to the
people. The ruler, king, prince, or emperor,
holds from God through the people, but howv
do the people themselves hold from God?  Mediately or immediately? If mediately, what
is the medium?  Surely not the people themselves. The people can no more be the medium than the principle of their own sovereignty. If immediately, then God governs in them
as he does in the church, and no man is free
to think or act contrary to popular opinion, or
in any case to question the wisdom or justice
132 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
of any of the acts of the state, which is arriving at state absolutism by another process. Besides, this would theoretically exclude all human or natural activity, all human intelligence
and free-will from the state, which were to fall
into either pantheism or atheism.
- VIII. The right of government to govern, or
political authority, is derived by the collective
people or society, from God through the law of
nature. Rulers hold from God through the
people or nation, and the people or nation hold
fiom God through the natural law. How na.
tions are founded or constituted, or a particular
people becomes a sovereign political people, in.
vested with the rights of society, will be considered in following chapters.   Here it suffices to say that supposing a political people or
nation, the sovereignty vests in the community,
not supernaturally, or by an external supernatural appointment, as the clergy hold their authority, but by the natural law, or law by which
God governs the whole moral creation.
They who assert the origin of government in
nature are right, so far as they derive it from
God through the law of nature, and are wrong
only when they understand by the law of nature
the physical force or  
133 
TEE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
are not laws in the primary and proper sense
of the term. The law of nature is not the order or rule of the divine action in nature which
is rightfully called providence, but is, as has
been said, law in its proper and primary sense,
ordained by the Author of nature, as its sovereign and supreme Lawgiver, and binds all of
his creatures who are endowed with reason and
free-will, and is called natural, because promulgated through the reason common to all men.
Undoubtedly, it was in the first instance, to
the first man, supernaturally promulgated, as it
is republished and confirmed by Christianity,
as an integral part of the Christian code itself.
Man needs even yet instruction in relation to
matters lying within the range of natural reason, or else secular schools, colleges, and universities would be superfluous, and manifestly the
instructor of the first man could have been
only the Creator himself.
The knowledge of the natural law has been
transmitted from Adam to us through two channels-reason, which is in every man, and in immediate relation with the Creator, and the
traditions of the primitive instruction embodied
in language and what the Romans call ju8 gentium, or law common to all civilized nations.
Under this law, whose prescriptions are promul
134 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
gated through reason and embodied in universal
jurisprudence, nations are providentially constituted, and invested with political sovereignty;
and as they are constituted under this law and
hold fiom God through it, it defines their respective rights and powers, their limitation and
their extent.
The political sovereignty, under the law of
nature, attaches to the people, not individually,
but collectively, as civil or political society. It
is vested in the political community or nation,
not in an individual, or family, or a class, because, under the natural law, all men are equal,
as they are under the Christian law, and one
man has, in his own right, no authority over
another. The family has in the father a natural
chief, but political society has no natural chief
or chiefs. The authority of the father is domestic, not political, and ceases when his children have attained to majority, have married
and become heads of families themselves, or
have ceased to make part of the paternal household. The recognition of the authority of the
father beyond the limits of his own household,
is, if it ever occurs, by virtue of the ordinance,
the consent, express or tacit, of the political
society.   There  are no natural-born political
chiefs, and wherever we find men claiming
135 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
or acklnowledged to be such, they are either
usurpers, what the Greeks called tyrantg, or
they are made such by the will or constitution
of the people or the nation.
Both monarchy and aristocracy were, no
doubt, historically developed fromnt the authority of the patriarchs, and have unquestionably
been sustained by an equally false development
of the right of property, especially landed property.  The owner of the land, or he who claimed
to own it, claimed as an incident of his ownership the right to govern it, and consequently to
govern all who occupied it. But however valid
may be the landlord's title to the soil, and it is
doubtful if man can own any thing in land beyond the usufruct, it can give him under the
law of nature no political right. Property, like
all natural rights, is entitled by the natural law
to protection, but not to govern.   Whether it
shall be made a basis of political power or not
is a question of political prudence, to be determined by the supreme political authority. It
was the basis, and almost exclusive basis, in the
Middle Ages, under feudalism, and is so still
in most states. France and the United States
are the principal exceptions in Christendom.
Property alone, or coupled with birth, is made
elsewhere in some form a basis of political
136 
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENT.
power, and where made so by the sovereign authority, it is legitimate, but not wise nor desir
able; for it takes from the weak and gives to the
strong. The rich have in their riches advantages
enough over the poor, without receiving from the
state any additional advantage. An aristocracy,
in the sense of families distinguished by birth,
noble and patriotic services, wealth, cultivation,
refinement, taste, and manners, is desirable in
every nation, is a nation's ornament, and also
its chief support, but they need and should receive no political recognition.   They should
form no privileged class in the state or political
society.
137 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER VII.
CONSTITUTION OF GO VER NENT.
Tin  Constitution is twofold: the constitution
of the state or nation, and the constitution of
the government.  The constitution of the government is, or is held to be, the work of the
nation itself; the constitution of the state, or
the people of the state, is, in its origin at least,
providential, given by God himself, operating
through historical events or natural causes.
The one originates in law, the other in historical fact.  The nation must exist, and exist as a
political community, before it can give itself a
constitution; and no state, any more than an
individual, can exist without a constitution of
some sort.
The distinction between the providential constitution of the people and the constitution of
the government, is not always made. The illustrious Count de Maistre, one of the ablest political philosophers who wrote in the last century,
or the first quarter of the present, in his work
138 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
on the Generative Principle of Poitictal Con,titution., maintains that constitutions are generated, not made, and excludes all human agency
from their formation and growth.  Disgusted
with French Jacobinism, from which he and
his king and country had suffered so much, and
deeply wedded to monarchy in both church
and state, he had the temerity to maintain that
God creates expressly royal families for the
government of nations, and that it is idle for a
nation to expect a good government without a
king who has descended from one of those
divinely created royal families. It was with
some such thought, most likely, that a French
journalist, writing home from the United States,
congratulated the American people on having
a Bonaparte in their army, so that when their
democracy failed, as in a few years it was sure
to do, they would have a descendant of a royal
house to be their king or emperor. Alas! the
Bonaparte has left us, and besides, he was
not the descendant of a royal house, and was,
like the present Emperor of the French, a
decided _parvenu.   Still, the Emperor of the
French, if only a parvenu, bears himself right
imperially among sovereigns, and has no peer
among any of the descendants of the old royal
families of Europe
139 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
There is a truth, however, in De Maistre's
doctrine that constitutions are generated, or
developed, not created de novo, or made all at
once.   But nothing is more true than that a
nation can alter its constitution by its own deliberate and voluntary action, and many nations
have done so, and sometimes for the better, as
well as for the worse.  If the constitution once
given is fixed and unalterable, it must be
wholly divine, and contain no human element,
and the people have and can have no hand in
their own government-the fundamental objection to the theocratic constitution of society.
To assume it is to transfer to civil society,
founded by the ordinary providence of God,
the constitution of the church, founded by his
gracious or supernatural providence, and to
maintain that the divine sovereignty governs in
civil society immediately and supernaturally, as
in the spiritual society. But such is not the
fact. God governs the nation by the nation
itself, through its own reason and free-will.
De Maistre is right only as to the constitution
the nation starts with, and as to the control
which that constitution necessarily exerts over
the constitutional changes the nation can successfully introduce.
The disciples of Jean Jacques Rousseau rec
140
I 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
ognize no providential constitution, and call
the written instrument drawn up by a convention of sovereign individuals the constitution,
and the only constitution, both of the people
and the government.   Prior to its adoption
there is no government, no state, no political
community or authority. Antecedently to it
the people are an inorganic mass, simply individuals, without any political or national solidarity. These individuals, they suppose, come
together in their own native right and might,
organize themselves into a political community,
give themselves a constitution, and draw up
and vote rules for their  government, as  a
number of individuals might meet in a public
hall and resolve themselves into a temperance
society or a debating club. This might do very
well if the  state were, like the temperance
society or debating club, a simple voluntary
association, which men are free to join or not as
they please, and which they are bound to obey
no farther and no longer than suits their convenience. But the state is a power, a sovereignty; speaks to all within its jurisdiction
with an imperative voice; commands, and may
use physical force to compel obedience, when
not voluntarily yielded.   Men  are born its
subjects, and no one can withdraw from it
141 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
without its express or tacit permission, unless
for causes that would justify resistance to its
authority. The right of subjects to denationalize or expatriate themselves, except to escape a
tyranny or an oppression which would forfeit
the rights of power and warrant forcible resistance to it, does not exist, any more than the
right of foreigners to become citizens, unless by
the consent and authorization of the sovereign;
for the citizen or subject belongs to the state,
and is bound to it.
The solidarity of the individuals composing
the population of a territory or country under
one political head is a truth; but "the solidarity of peoples," irrespective of the govern.
ment or political authority of their respective
countries, so eloquently preached a few years
since by the Hungarian Kossuth, is not only a
falsehood, but a falsehood destructive of all
government and of all political organization.
Kossuth's doctrine supposes the people, or the
populations of all countries, are, irrespective of
their governments, bound together in 8olido,
each for all and all for each, and therefore not
only free, but bound, wherever they find a population struggling nominally for liberty against
its government, to rush with arms in their hands
to its assistance-a doctrine clearly incompati
142 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
ble with any recognition of political authority
or territorial rights. Peoples or nations commune with each other only through the national
authorities, and when the state proclaims neutrality or non-intervention, all its subjects are
bound to be neutral, and to abstain from all
intervention on either side. There may be, and
indeed there is, a solidarity, more or less distinctly recognized, of Christian nations, but of
the populations with and through their governments, not without them. Still more strict is
the solidarity of all the individuals of one and
the same nation. These are all bound together,
all for each and each for all. The individual is
born into society and under the government,
and without the authority of the government,
which represents all and each, he cannot release
himself from his obligations. The state is then
by no means a voluntary association. Every
one born or adopted into it is bound to it, and
cannot without its permission withdraw from
it, unless, as just said, it is manifest that he can
have under it no protection for his natural
rights as a man, more especially for his rights
of conscience.   This is Vattel's doctrine, and
the dictate of common sense.
The constitution drawn up, ordained, and
established by a nation for itself is a law-the
143 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC
orgcanic or fundamental law, if you will, but a
law, and is and must be the act of the sovereign
power. That sovereign power must exist before
it can act, and it cannot exist, if vested in the
people or nation, without a constitution, or
without some sort of political organization of
the people or nation. There must, then, be for
every state or nation a constitution anterior to
the constitution which the nation gives itself,
and from which the one it gives itself derives
all its vitality and legal force.
Logic and historical facts are here, as else.
where, coincident, for creation and providence
are simply the expression of the Supreme Logic,
the Logos, by whom all things are made.  Nations have originated in various ways, but }iistory records no instance of a nation existing as
an inorganic mass organizing itself into a political community. Every nation, at its first appearance above the horizon, is found to have an
organization of some sort. This is evident from
the only ways in which history shows us nations
originating. These ways are: 1. The union of
families in the tribe. 2. The union of tribes
in the nation. 3. The migration of families,
tribes, or nations in search of new settlements.
4. Colonization, military, agricultural, commnercial, industrial, religious, or penal. 5. War
144
.I.
l  s    s  a,.  + 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERXNIENT.
and conquest. 6. The revolt, separation, and
independence of provinces. 7. The intermingling of the conquerors and conquered, and
by amalgamation forming a new people.
These are all the ways known to history, and
in none of these ways does a people, absolutely
destitute of all organization, constitute itself a
state, and institute and carry on civil govern.
ment.
The family, the tribe, the colony are, if incomplete, yet incipient states, or inchoate nations, with an organization, individuality, and
a centre of social life of their own. The families and tribes that migrate in search of new
settlements carry with them their family and
tribal organizations, and retain it for a long
time. The Celtic tribes retained it in Gaul till
broken up by the Roman conquest, under Csesar Augustus; in Ireland, till the middle of the
seventeenth century; and in Scotland, till the
middle of the eighteenth. It subsists still in
the htordes of Tartary, the Arabs of the Desert,
and the Berbers or Kal)yles of Africa.
Colonies, of whatever description, have been
founded, if not by, at least under, the authority
of the mother country, whose political constitution, laws, manners, and customs they carry
with them. They receive from the parent state
11
145 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
a political organization, which, though subordinate, yet constitutes them embryonic states,
with a unity, individuality, and centre of public life in themselves, and which, when they are
detached and recognized as independent, render
them complete states. War and conquest effect
great national changes, but do not, strictly
speaking, create new states. They simply extend and consolidate the power of the conquering state.
Provinces revolt and become independent
states or nations, but only when they have previously existed as such, and have retained the
tradition of their old constitution and independence; or when the administration has
erected them into real though dependent political communities. A portion of the people of
a state not so erected or organized, that has in
no sense had a distinct political existence of its
own, has never separated from the national
body and formed a new and independent nation. It cannot revolt; it may rise up against
the government, and either revolutionize and
take possession of the state, or be put down by
the government as an insurrection. The amalgamation of the conquering and the conquered
forms.a new people, and modifies the institutions of both, but does not necessarily form a
146 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
new nation or political community. The Eng.
lish of to-day are very different from both the
Normans and the Saxons, or Dano-Saxons, of
the time of Richard Cceur de Lion, but they
constitute the same state or political community.
England is still England.
The Roman empire, conquered by the North.
ern barbarians, has been cut up into several
separate and independent nations, but because
its several provinces had, prior to their conquest
by the Roman arms, been independent nations
or tribes, and more especially because the conquerors themselves were divided into several
distinct nations or confederacies. If the barbarians had been united in a single nation or
state, the Roman empire most likely would
have changed masters, indeed, but have retained
its unity and its constitution, for the Germanic
nations that finally seated themselves on its
ruins had no wish to destroy its name or nationality, for they were themselves more than
half Romanized before conquering Rome. But
the new nations into which the empire has been
divided have never been, at any moment, without political or governmental organization, con.
tinued from the constitution of the conquering
tribe or nation, modified more or less by what
was retained from the empire.
147 
THE AMERICAN ICPUBLIC.
It is not pretended that the constitutions of
states cannot be altered, or that every people
starts with a constitution fully developed, as
would seem to be the doctrine of De Maistre.
The constitution of the family is rather econormical than political, and the tribe is far fromn
being a fully developed state. Strictly speak.
ing, the state, the modern equivalent for the
city of the Greeks and Romans, was not fully
formed till men began to build and live in
cities, and became fixed to a national territory.
But in the first place, the eldest born of the human race, we are told, built a city, and even in
cities we find traces of the family and tribal organization long after their municipal existence
-in Athens down to the Macedonian conquest,
and in Rome down to the establishment of the
Empire; and, in the second place, the pastoral
nations, though they have not precisely the city
or state organization, yet have a national
organization, and obey a national authority.
Strictly speaking, no pastoral nation has a civil
or political constitution, but they have what in
our modern tongues can be expressed by no
other term. The feudal regime, which was in
full vigor even in Europe from the tenth to the
close of the fourteenth century, had nothing to
do with cities, and really recognized no state
148 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
proper; yet who hesitates to speak of it as a
civil or political system, though a very imper.
fect one?
The civil order, as it now exists, was not fully
developed in the early ages. For a long time
the national organizations bore unmistakable
traces of having been developed from the patriarchal, and modelled from the family or tribe,
as they do still in all the non-Christian world.
Religion  itself, before the Incarnation, bore
traces of the same organization. Even with the
Jews, religion was transmitted and diffused, not
as under Christianity by conversion, but by
natural generation or family adoption. With
all the Gentile tribes or nations, it was  the
same. At first the father was both priest and
king, and when the two offices were separated,
the priests formed a distinct and hereditary
class or caste, rejected by Christianity, which, as
we have seen, admits priests only after the order
of AMelchisedech. The Jews had the synagogue,
and preserved the primitive revelation in its
piurity and integrity; but the Greeks and Romans, more fully than any other ancient nations,
preserved or developed the political order that
best conforms to the Christian religion; and
Christianity, it is worthy of remark, followed
in the track of the Roman armies, and it gains
149 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
a permanent establishment only where was
planted, or where it is able to plant, the GriecoRoman civilization. The Grseco-Roman republics were hardly less a schoolmaster to bring
the world to Christ in the civil order, than the
Jewish nation was to bring it to Him in the
spiritual order, or in faith and worship. In the
Christian order nothing is by hereditary descent, but every thing is by election of grace.
The Christian dispensation is teleological, palingenesiac, and the whole order, prior to the Incarnation, was initial, genesiac, and continued
by natural generation, as it is still in all nations
and tribes outside of Christendom.  No  nonChristian people is a civilized people, and, in
deed, the human race seems not anywhere, prior
to the Incarnation, to have attained to its majority: and it is, perhaps, because the race were
not prepared for it, that the Word was not
sooner incarnated. He came only in the fulness of time, when  the world' was ready to
receive him.
The providential constitution is, in fact, that
with which the nation is born, and is, as long
as the nation exists, the real living and efficient
constitution of the state. It is the source of
the vitality of the state, that which controls or
governs its action, and determines its destiny
150 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
The constitution which a nation is said to give
itself, is never the constitution of the state, but
is the law ordained by the state for the govern.
ment instituted under it. Thomas Paine would
admit nothing to be the constitution but a written document which he could fold up and put
in his pocket, or file away in a pigeon-hole.
The Abbe' Sieyes pronounced politics a science
which he had finished, and he was ready to turn
you out constitutions to order, with no other
defect than that they had, as Carlyle wittily
says, no feet, and could not go. Many in the
last century, and some, perhaps, in the present,
for folly as well as wisdom has her heirs, confounded the written instrument with the constitution itself. No constitution can be written
on paper or engrossed on parchment. What
the convention may agree upon, draw  up, and
the people ratify by their votes, is no constitu tion, for it is extrinsic to the nation, not inhe rent and living in it-is, at best, legislative in stead of constitutive. The famous Magna Char ta drawn up by Cardinal Langton, and wrung
from John Lackland by the English barons at
Runnymiede, was no constitution of England
till long after the date of its concession, and
even then was no constitution of the state, but a
set of restrictions on power. The constitution is
151 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the intrinsic or inherent and actual constitu tion of the people or political community itself;
that which makes the nation what it is, and
distinguishes it from every other nation, and
varies as nations themselves vary from one an other.
The constitution of the state is not a theory,
nor is it drawn up and established in accordance with any preconceived theory.  What is
theoretic in a constitution is unreal. The constitutions conceived by philosophers in their
closets are constitutions only of Utopia or
Dreamland.  This world is not governed by abstractions, for abstractions are nullities. Only
the concrete is real, and only the real or actual
has vitality or force. The French people
adopted constitution after constitution of the
most approved pattern, and amid bonfires,
beating of drums, sound of trumpets, roar of
musketry, and thunder of artillery, swore, no
doubt, sincerely as well as enthusiastically, to
observe them, but all to no effect; for they had
no authority for the nation, no hold on its affections, and formed no element of its life. The
English are great constitution-mongers for
other nations. They fancy that a constitution
fashioned after their own will fit any nation
that can be persuaded, wheedled, or bullied into
152 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
trying it on; but, unhappily, all that have tried
it on have found it only an embarrassment
or encumbrance. The doctor might as well
attempt to give an individual a new constitution, or the constitution of another man, as the
statesman to give a nation any other constitution than that which it has, and with which it
is born.
The whole history of Europe, since the fall
of the Roman empire, proves this thesis. The
barbarian conquest of Rome introduced into
the nations founded on the site of the empire,
a double constitution-the barbaric and the
civil-the Germanic and the Roman in the
West, and the Tartaric or Turkish and the
Grmco-Roman in the East. The key to all
modern history is in the mutual struggles of
these two constitutions and the interests respectively associated with them, which created
two societies on the same territory, and, for the
most part, under the same national denomination. The barbaric was the constitution of
the conquerors; they had the power, the government, rank, wealth, and fashion, were reenforced down to the tenth century by fresh hordes
of barbarians, and had even brought the external
ecclesiastical society to a very great extent into
harmony with itself. The Pope became a
153 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
feudal sovereign, and the bishops and mitred
abbots feudal princes and barons. Yet, after
eight hundred years of fierce struggle, the Roman constitution got the upper hand; and the
barbaric constitution, as far as it could not be
assimilated to the Roman, was eliminated.  The
original Empire of the West is now as thoroughly Roman in its constitution, its laws, and
its civilization, as it ever was under any of its
Christian emperors before the barbarian conquest.
The same process is going on in the East,
though it has not advanced so far, having begun there several centuries later, and the GrsecoRoman constitution was far feebler there than in
the West at the epoch of the conquest. The
Germanic tribes that conquered the West had
long had close relations with the empire, had
served as its allies, and even in its armies, and
were partially Romanized. Most of their chiefs
had received a Roman culture; and their early
conversion to the Christian faith facilitated the
revival and permanence of the old Roman constitution. In the East it was different. The
conquerors had no touch of Roman civilization,
and, followers of the Prophet, they were animated with an intense hatred, which, after the
conquest, was changed into a superb contempt,
154 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
of Christians and Romans.   They  had their
civil constitution in the Koran; and the Koran,
in its principles, doctrines, and spirit, is exclu.
sive, and profoundly intolerant.   The GrsecoRoman constitution was always much weaker
in the East, and had far greater obstacles to
overcome there than in the West; yet it has
survived the shock of the conquest. Throughout the limits of the ancient Empire of the East,
the barbaric constitution has received and is
daily receiving rude blows, and, but as reenforced by barbarians lying outside of the boundaries of that empire, would be no longer able
to sustain itself. The Greek or Christian populations of the empire are no longer in danger
of being exterminated or absorbed by the Mohammedan state or population. They are the
only living and progressive people of the Ottoman Empire, and their complete success in
absorbing or expelling the Turk is only a question of time. They will, in all present probability, reestablish a Christian and Roman East
in much less time from the fall of Constantinople in 1453, than it took the West fironm the fall
of Rome in 476 to put an end to the feudal or
barbaric constitution founded by its Germanic
invaders.
Indeed, the Roman constitution, laws, and
155 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
civilization not only gain the mastery in the
nations seated within the limits of the old Roman Empire, but extend their power throughout
the whole civilized world. The Greco-Roman
civilization is, in fact, the only civilization now
recognized, and nations are accounted civilized
only in proportion as they are Romanized and
Christianized.  The Roman law, as found in the
Institutes, Pandects, and Novelle of Justinian,
or the Corpu, ~egi8s Civilig, is the basis of the
law and jurisprudence of all Christendom.
The Greco-Roman civilization, called not improperly Christian civilization, is the only progressive civilization. The old feudal system
remains in England little more than an empty
name. The king is only the first magistrate of
the kingdom, and the House of Lords is only
an hereditary senate. Austria is hard at work
in the Roman direction, and finds her chief obstacle to success in Hungary, with the Magyars
whose feudalism retains almost the full vigor
of the Middle Ages. Russia is moving in the
same direction; and Prussia and the smaller
Germanic states obey the same impulse. Indeed, Rome has survived the conquest-has
conquered her conquerors, and now invades
every region from which they came. The Roman Empire may be said to be acknowledged
156 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
and obeyed in lands lying far beyond the farthest
limits reached by the Roman eagles, and to be
more truly the mistress of the world than
under Augustus, Trajan, or  the  Antonines.
Nothing can stand before the Christian and
Romanized nations, and all pagandom and Mohammedorm combined are too weak to resist
their onward march.
All modern European revolutions result only
in reviving the Roman Empire, whatever the
motives, interests, passions, or theories that initiate them.  The French Revolution of the
last century and that of the present prove
it.  France,  let people say what they will,
stands at the head of the European civilized
world, and displays en giand all its good and
all its bad tendencies. When she moves, Europe moves; when she has a vertigo, all European nations are dizzy; when she recovers her
health, her equilibrium, and good sense, others
become sedate, steady, and reasonable. She is
the head, nay, rather, the heart of Christendom
-the head is at Rome-through which circulates the pure and impure blood of the nations.
It is in vain Great Britain, Germany, or Russia
disputes with her the hegemony of European
civilization. They are forced to yield to her
at last, to be content to revolve around her as
157 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the centre of the political system that masters
them.  The reason is, France is more complete ly and sincerely Roman than any other nation.
The revolutions that have shaken the world
have resulted in eliminating the barbaric elements she had retained, and clearing away all
obstacles to the complete triumph of Imperial
Rome. Napoleon III. is for France what Augustus was for Rome. The revolutions in Spain
and Italy have only swept away the relics of
the barbaric constitution, and aided the revival
of Roman imperialism. In no country do the
revolutionists succeed in establishing their own
theories; Caesar remains master of the field.
Even in the United States, a revolution undertaken in favor of the barbaric system has resuited in the destruction of what remained of
that system-in sweeping away the last relics
of disintegrating feudalism, and in the complete
establishment of the Greco-Roman system, with
important improvements, in the New World.
The Roman system is republican, in the broad
sense of the term, because under it power is
never an estate, never the private property of
the ruler, but, in whose hands soever vested, is
held as a trust to be exercised for the public
good. As it existed under the Csesars, and
is revived in modern times, whether under the
158 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
imperial or the democratic form, it, no doubt,
tends to centralism, to the concentration of all
the powers and forces of the state in one central government, from which all local authorities and institutions emanate. Wise men oppose
it as affording no guaranties to individual liberty against the abuses of power. This it may
not do, but the remedy is not in feudalism. The
feudal lord holds his authority as an estate, and
has over the people under him all the power
of Cmsar and all the rights of the proprietor.
He, indeed, has a guaranty against his liege.
lord, sometimes a more effective guaranty than
his liege-lord has against him; but against his
centralized power his vassals and serfs have
only the guaranty that a slave has against his
owner.
Feudalism is alike hostile to the freedom of
public authority and of the people. It is essentially a disintegrating element in the nation.
It breaks the unity and individuality of the
state, embarrasses the sovereign, and guards
against the abuse of public authority by overpowering and suppressing it. Every feudal lord
is a more thorough despot in his own domain
than Cesar ever was or could be in the empire;
and the monarch, even if strong enough, is yet
not competent to intervene between him and his
159 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC,
people, any more than the General government
in the United States was to intervene between
the negro slave and his master. The great vassals of the crown singly, or, if not singly, in
combination- and they could always combine
in the interest of their order-were too strong
for the king, or to be brought under any public authority, and could issue from their fortified
castles and rob and plunder to their hearts'
content, with none to call them to an account,.
Under the most thoroughly centralized govern.
ment there is far more liberty for the people,
and a far greater security for person and property, except in the case of the feudal nobles
themselves, than was even dreamed of while
the feudal regime was in full vigor.  Nobles
were themselves free, it is conceded, but not the
people. The king was too weak, too restricted
in his action by the feudal constitution to reach
them, and the higher clergy were ex officio sovereigns, princes, barons, or feudal lords, and
were led by their private interests to act with
the feudal nobility, save when that nobility
threatened the temporalities of the church. The
only reliance, under God, left in feudal times to
the poor people was in the lower ranks of the
clergy, especially of the regular clergy. All
the great German emperors in the twelfth and
160 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
thirteenth centuries, who saw the evils of feu dalism, and attempted to break it up and revive
imperial Rome, became involved in quarrels
with the chiefs of the religious society, and
failed, because the interest of the Popes, as feudal sovereigns and Italian princes, and the interests of the dignified clergy, were for the time
bound up with the feudal society, though their
Roman culture and civilization made them at
heart hostile to it.  The student of history,
however strong his filial affection towards the
visible head of the church, cannot help admiring the grandeur of the political views of Frederic the Second, the greatest and last of the
Hohenstaufen, or refrain from dropping a tear
over his sad failure. He had great faults as a
man, but he had rare genius as a statesman;
and it is some consolation to know that he died
a Christian death, in charity with all men, after
having received the last sacraments of his
religion.
The Popes, under the circumstances, were no
doubt justified in the policythey pursued, for the
Suabian emperors failed to respect the acknowledged rights of the church, and to remember
their own incompetency in spirituals; but evidently their political views and aims were liberal, far-reaching, and worthy of admiration.
12
161 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Their success, if it could have been effected
without lesion to the church, would have set
Europe forward some two or three hundred
years, and probably saved it from the schisms
of the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. But
it is easy to be wise after the event. The fact
is, that during the period when feudalism was
in full vigor, the king was merely a shadow;
the people found their only consolation in religion, and their chief protectors in the monks,
who mingled with them, saw their sufferings,
and sympathized with them, consoled them,
carried their cause to the castle before the feudal lord and lady, and did, thank God, do
something to keep alive religious sentiments
and convictions in the bosom of the feudal society itself. Whatever opinions may be formed
of the monastic orders in relation to the present, this much is certain, that they were the
chief civilizers of Europe, and the chief agents
in delivering European society from feudal
barbarism.
The aristocracy have been claimed as the
natural allies of the throne, but history proves
them to be its natural enemies, whenever it
cannot be used in their service, and kings do
not consent to be their ministers and to do their
bidding. A political aristocracy has at heart
162 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
only the interests of its order, and pursues
no line of policy but the extension or preservation of its privileges. Having little to gain
and much to lose, it opposes every political
change that would either strengthen the crown
or elevate the people.   The nobility in the
French Revolution were the first to desert both
the king and the kingdom, and kings have al.
ways found their readiest and firmest allies in
the people. The people in Europe have no
such bitter feelings towards royalty as they
have towards the feudal nobility-for kings
have never so grievously oppressed them. In
Rome the patrician order opposed alike the
emperor and the people, except when they, as
chivalric nobles sometimes will do, turned cour.
tiers or demagogues. They were the people
of Rome and the provinces that sustained the
emperors, and they were the emperors who sustained the people, and gave to the provincials
the privileges of Roman citizens.
Guaranties against excessive centralism are
certainly needed, but the statesman will not
seek them in the feudal organization of society
-in a political aristocracy, whether founded on
birth or private wealth, nor in a privileged
class of any sort. Better trust Csesar than
Brutus, or even Cato. Nor will he seek them
163 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
in the antagonism of interests intended to neu.
tralize or balance each other, as in the English
constitution. This was the great error of Mr.
Calhoun. No man saw more clearly than Mr.
Calhoun the utter worthlessness of simple paper
constitutions, on which Mr. Jefferson placed such
implicit reliance, or that the real constitution is
in the state itself, in the manner in which the
people themselves are organized; but his reliance was in constituting, as powers in the state,
the several popular interests that exist, and pit.
ting them against each other-the famous systemn of checks and balances of English states.
men. He was led to this, because he distrusted
power, and was more intent on guarding against
its abuses than on providing for its free, vigorous, and healthy action, going on the principle
that "that is the best government which governs least." But, if the opposing interests could
be made to balance one another perfectly, the
result would be an equilibrium, in which power
would be brought to a stand-still; and if not,
the stronger would succeed and swallow up all
the rest. The theory of checks and balances is
admirable if the object be to trammel power,
and to have as little power in the government
as possible; but it is a theory which is born
from passions engendered by the struggle against
I
164 
OONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
despotism or arbitrary power, not from a calm
and philosophical appreciation of government
itself. The English have not succeeded in
establishing their theory, for, after all, their
constitution does not work so well as they pretend.  The landed interest controls at one time,
and the mercantile and manufacturing interest
at another. They do not perfectly balance one
another, and it is not difficult to see that the
mercantile and manufacturing interest, combined with the moneyed interest, is henceforth
to predominate. The aim of the real statesman is to organize all the interests and forces
of the state dialectically, so that they shall
unite to add to its strength, and work together
harmoniously for the common good.
166 
TIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER VIII.
CONSTITUTION OF GO VERNMENT-CoNCLUDIED.
TolOGH the constitution of the people is congenital, like the constitution of an individuals
and cannot be radically changed without the
destruction of the state, it must not be supposed that it is wholly withdrawn from the
action of the reason and free-will of the nation,
nor from that of individual statesmen.   All
created things are subject to the law of development, and may be developed either in a good
sense or in a bad; that is, may be either completed or corrupted. All the possibilities of
the national constitution are given originally
in the birth of the nation, as all the possibilities
of mankind were given in the first man. The
germ must be given in the original constitution.
But in all constitutions there is more than one element, and the several elements maybe developed
pari passu, or unequally, one having the ascendency and  suppressing the rest.  In the
original constitution of Rome the patrician ele
166 
CON\STITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
ment was dominant, showing that the patriarchal organization of society still retained no
little force. The king was only the presiding
officer of the senate and the leader of the army
in war. His civil functions corresponded very
nearly to those of a mayor of the city of New
York, where all the effective power is in the
aldermen, common  council, and heads of departments. Except in name he was little else
than a pageant. The kings, no doubt, labored
to develop and extend the royal element of the
constitution. This was natural; and it was
equally natural that they should be resisted by
the patricians. Hence when the Tarquins, or
Etruscan dynasty, undertook to be kings in
fact as well as in name, and seemed likely to
succeed, the patricians expelled them, and supplied their place by two consuls annually
elected. Here was a modification, but no real
change  of the  constitution.   The  effective
power, as before, remained in the senate.
But there was from early times a plebeian
element in the population of the city, though
forming at first no part of the political people.
Their origin is not very certain, nor their orig.
inal position  in  the city.   Historians give
different accounts of them.   But that they
should, as they increased in numbers, wealth,
16'7 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
and importance, demand admission into the pot
litical society, religious or solemn marriage,
a voice in the government, and the faculty of
holding civil and military offices, was only in
the order of regular development. At first the
patricians fought them, and, failing to subdue
them  by  force, effected  a compromise, and
bought up their leaders. The concession which
followed of the tribunitial veto was only a
further development. By that veto the plebeians gained no initiative, no positive power,
indeed, but their tribunes, by interposing it,
could stop the proceedings of the government.
They could not propose the measures they liked,
but they could prevent the legal adoption of
measures they disliked-a faculty Mr. Calhoun
asserted for the several States of the American
Union in his doctrine of nullification, or State
veto, as he called it. It was simply an obstructive power.
But from a power to obstruct legislative action to the power to originate or propose it,
and force the senate to adopt it through fear of
the veto of measures the patricians had at
heart, was only a still further development. This
gained, the exclusively patrician constitution
had disappeared, and Marins, the head of a
great plebeian house, could be elected consul
168 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
and the plebeians in turn threaten to become
predominant, which Sylla or Sulla, as dictator,
seeing, tried in vain to prevent. The dictator
wvas provided for in the original constitution.
Retain the dictatorship for a time, strengthenthe plebeian element by ruthless proscriptions of
patricians and by recruits from the provinces,
unite the tribunitial, pontifical, and military
powers in the imperator designated by the
army, all elements existing in the constitution
friom an early day, and already developed in the
Roman state, and you have the imperial constitution, which retained to the last the senate and
consuls, though with less and less practical
power. These changes are very great, but are
none of them radical, dating from the recognition of the plebs as pertaining to the Roman
people.   They are normal developments, not
corruptions, and the transition from the consular republic to the imperial was unquestionably a real social and political progress. And
yet the Roman people, had they chosen, could
have given a different direction to the develop.
ments of their constitution. There was Providence in the course of events, but no fatalism.
Sulla was a true patrician, a blind partisan
of the past. He sought to arrest the plebeian
development led by Marius, and to restore the
169 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
exclusively patrician government. But it was
too late. His proscriptions, confiscations, butcheries, unheard-of cruelties, which anticipated
and surpassed those of the French Revolution
of 1793, availed nothing.  The Marian or piebeian movement, apparently checked for a moment, resumed its march with renewed vigor
under Julius, and triumphed at Pharsalia. In
vain Cicero, only accidentally associated with
the patrician party, which distrusted himin vain Cicero declaims, Cato scolds, or parades
his impractical virtues, Brutus and Cassius seize
the assassin's dagger, and strike to the earth
"the foremost man of all the world;" the plebe
ian cause moves on with resistless force, triumphs anew at Philippi, and young Octavius
avenges the murder of his uncle, and proves
to the world that the assassination of a ruler is a
blunder as well as a crime. In vain does Mark
Antony desert the movement, rally Egypt
and the barbaric East, and seek to transfer the
seat of empire from the Tiber to the banks of
the Nile or the Orontes; plebeian and imperial
Rome wins a final victory at Actium, and de.
finitively secures the empire of the civilized
world to the West.
Thus far the developments were normal, and
advanced civilization. But Rome still retained
170 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
the barbaric element of slavery in her bosom,
and had conquered more barbaric nations than
she had assimilated.   These nations she at
first governed as tributary states, with their
own constitutions and national chiefs; afterwards as Roman provinces, by her own proconsuls and prefects. When the emperors threw
open the gates of the city to the provincials,
and conceded them the rights and privileges of
Roman citizens, they introduced not only a foreign element into the state, destitute of Roman
patriotism, but the barbaric and despotic elements retained by the conquered nations as yet
only partially assimilated. These elements became germs of anti-republican developments,
rather of corruptions, and prepared the downfall of the empire. Doubtless these corruptions might have been arrested, and would have
been, if Roman patriotism had survived the
changes effected in the Roman population by
the concession of Roman citizenship to provincials; but it did not, and they were favored as
time went on by the emperors themselves, and
more especially by Dioclesian, a real barbarian, who hated Rome, and by Constantine, sur.
named the Great, a real despot, who converted
the empire from a republican to a despotic
empire. Rome fell from the force of barba
171
pr 
THE AERICAN REPUBLIC.
rism developed from within, far more than from
the force of the barbarians hovering on her
firontiers and invading her provinces.
The law of all possible developments is in
the providential or congenital constitution;
but these possible developments are many and
various, and the reason and firee-will of the
nation as well as of individuals are operative
in determining which of them shall be adopted.
The nation, under the direction of wise and
able statesmen, who understood their age
and country, who knew how to discern between
normal developments and barbaric corruptions,
placed at the head of affairs in season, might
have saved Rome from her fate, eliminated the
barbaric and assimilated the foreign elements,
and preserved Rome as a Christian and republican empire to this day, and saved the civilized world from the ten centuries of barbarism which followed her conquest by the barbarians of the North.  But it rarely happens
that the real statesmen of a nation are placed
at the head of affairs.
Rome did not fall in consequence of the
strength of her external enemies, nor through
the corruption of private morals and manners,
which was never greater than under the first
Triumvirate. She fell from the want of true
172 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
statesmanship in her public men, and patriotism ill her people. Private virtues and private
vices are of the last consequence to individuals,
both here and hereafter; but private virtues
never saved, private vices never ruined a nation. Edward the Confessor was a saint, and
yet he prepared the way for the Norman conquest of England; and France owes infinitely
less to St. Louis than to Louis XI., Richelieu,
and Napoleon, who, though no saints, were
statesmen.  What is specially needed it statesmen is public spirit, intelligence, foresight,
broad views, manly feelings, wisdom, energy,
resolution; and when statesmen with these qualities are placed at the head of affairs, the state,
if not already lost, can, however far gone it
may be, be recovered, restored, reinvigorated,
advanced, and private vice and corruption disappear in the splendor of public virtue.  Providence is always present in the affairs of nations, but not to work miracles to counteract
the natural effects of the ignorance, ineptness,
short-sightedness, narrow views, public stupidity, and imbecility of rulers, because they are
irreproachable and saintly in their private
characters and relations, as was Henry VI. of
England, or, in some respects, Louis XVI. of
France. Providence is God intervening through
173 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the laws he by his creative act gives to creatures, not their suspension or abrogation. It
was the corruption of the statesmen, in substituting the barbaric element for the proper Roman, to which no one contributed more than
Constantine, the first Christian emperor, that
was the real cause of the downfall of Rome,
and the centuries of barbarism that followed,
relieved  only by  the  superhuman zeal and
charity of the church to save souls and restore
civilization.
But in the constitution of the government,
as distinguished from the state, the nation is
freer and more truly sovereign. The constitution of the state is that which gives to the people of a given territory political existence, unity,
and individuality, and renders it capable of po.
]itical action. It creates political or national
solidarity, in imitation of the solidarity of the
race, in which it has its root. It is the providential charter of national existence, and that
which gives to each nation its peculiar character, and distinguishes it from every other nation. The constitution of government is the
constitution by the sovereign authority of the
nation of an agency or ministry for the managemnent of its affairs, and the letter of instructions
according to which the agent or minister is to
174 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
act and conduct the matters intrusted to him.
The distinction which the English make between the' sovereign and the ministry is analogous to that between the state and the government, only they understand by the sovereign
the king or queen, and by the ministry the executive, excluding, or not decidedly including,
thelegislature and the judiciary.  The sovereign
is the people as the state or body politic,
and' as the king holds from God only through
the people, he is not properly sovereign, and is
to be ranked with the ministry or government.
Yet when the state delegates the full or chief
governing power to the king, and makes him
its sole or principal representative, he may, with
sufficient accuracy for ordinary purposes, be
called sovereign. Then, understanding by the
ministry or government the legislative and
judicial, as well as the executive functions,
whether united in one or separated into distinct
and mutually independent departments, the
English distinction will express accurately
enough, except for strictly scientific purposes,
the distinction between the state and the government.
Still, it is only in despotic states, which are
not founded on right, but force, that the king
can say, L'e'tat, c'est moi, I am the state; and
175 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Shakspeare's usage of calling the king of Fsrance
simply France, and the king of England simply
England, smacks of feudalism, under which
monarchy is an estate, property, not a public
trust. It corresponds to the Scottish usage of
calling the proprietor by the name of his estate.
It is never to be forgotten that in republican
states the king has only a delegated sovereignty, that the people, as well as God, are
above him. He holds his power, as the Emperor
of the French professes to hold his, by the
grace of God and the national will the only
title by which a king or emperor can legitimately hold power.
The king or emperor not being the state,
and the government, whatever its form or constitution, being a creature of the state, he can
be dethroned, and the whole government even
virtually overthrown, without dissolving the
state or the political society.  Such an event
may cause much evil, create much social confusion, and do grave injury to the nation, but the
political society may survive it; the sovereign
remains in the plenitude  of his rights, as
competent to restore government as he was
originally to institute it. When, in 1848, Louis
Philippe was dethroned by the Parisian mob,
and fled the kingdom, there was in France no
176 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
legitimate government, for all commissions ran
in the king's name; but the organic or territorial people of France, the body politic, remained, and in it remained the sovereign power
to organize and appoint a new government.
When, on the 2d of December, 1851, the president, by a coup d'etat, suppressed the legislative assembly and the constitutional government, there was no legitimate government
standing, and the power assumed by the president was unquestionably a usurpation; but the
nation was competent to condone his usurpa-ion and legalize his power, and by a plebiscitum actually did so. The wisdom or justice
of the coup  d'e'ta is another question, about
which men may differ; but when the French
nation, by its subsequent act, had condoned
it, and formally conferred dictatorial powers on
the prince-president, the principal had approved
the act of his agent, and given him discretionary powers, and nothing more was to be said.
The imperial constitution and the election of
the president to be emperor, that followed on
December 2d, 1852, were strictly legal, and,
whatever. men may think of Napoleon III., it
miust be conceded that there is no legal flaw
in his title, and that he holds his power by a
13
177 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
title as high and as perfect as there is for any
prince or ruler.
But the plebiscitum cannot be legally appealed to or be valid when and where there is
a legal government existing and in the full
exercise of its constitutional functions, as was
decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States in a case growing out of what is known
as the Dorr rebellion in Rhode Island. A suf
frage committee, having no political authority,
drew up and presented a new constitution of
government to the people, plead a plebiscitum in its favor, and claimed the officers elected
under it as the legally elected officers of the
state. The court refused to recognize the plebiscitum, and decided that it knew Rhode
Island only as represented through the government, which had never ceased to exist. New
States in Territories have been organized on the
strength of a plebiscitumn when the legal Territorial government was in force, and were admitted as States into the Union, which, though
irregular and dangerous, could be done without
revolution, because Congress, that admitted
them, is the power to grant the permission to
organize as States and apply for admission.
Congress is competent to condone an offence
against its own rights. The real danger of the
178 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
practice is, that it tends to create a conviction
that sovereignty inheres in the people individually, or as population, not as the body politic
or organic people attached to a sovereign domain; and the people who organize under a
plebiscitum are not, till organized and admitted
into the Union, an organic or a political people
at all. When Louis Napoleon made his appeal
to a vote of the French people, he made an appeal to a people existing as a sovereign people,
and a sovereign people without a legal government. In his case the plebiscitum was proper
and sufficient, even if it be conceded that it
was through his own fault that France at the
moment was found without a legal government. When a thing is done, though wrongly
done, you cannot act as if it were not done, but
must accept it as a fact and act accordingly.
The plebiscitum, which is simply an appeal to
the people outside of government, is not valid
when the government has not lapsed, either by
its usurpations or by its dissolution, nor is it
valid either in the case of a province, or of a
population that has no organic existence as an
independent sovereign state. The plebiscitum
in France was valid, but in the Grand Duchy
of Tuscany, the Duchies of Modena, Parma,
and Lucca, and in the Kingdom of the Two
179 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Sicilies it was not valid, for their legal governments had not lapsed; nor was it valid in the
AEmilian provinces of the Papal States, because
they were not a nation or a sovereign people,
but only a portion of such nation or people.
In the case of the states and provinces-except
Lombardy, ceded to France by Austria, and sold
to the Sardinian king-annexed to Piedmont
to form the new kingdom of Italy, the plebiscitum was invalid, because implying the right
of the people to rebel against the legal author.
ity, and to break the unity and individuality
of the state of which they form an integral
part. The nation is a whole, and no part has
the right to secede or separate, and set up a
government for itself, or annex itself to another
state, without the consent of the whole. The
solidarity of the nation is both a fact and a
law. The secessionists from the United States
defended their action only on the ground that
the States of the American Union are severally independent sovereign states, and they
only obeyed the authority of their respective
states.
The plebiscitum, or irregular appeal to what
is called universal suffrage, since adopted by
Louis Napoleon in France after the coup d'ett,
is becoming not a little menacing to the stabil
180 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERMMENT.
ity of governments and the rights and integrity of states, and is not less dangerous to the
peace and order of society than'-"the solidarity
of peoples" asserted by Kossuth, the revolutionary ex-governor of Hungary, the last stronghold of feudal barbarism in Christian Europe;
for Russia has emancipated her serfs.
The nation, as sovereign, is free to constitute
government according to its own judgment, under any form it pleases-monarchical, aristocratic, democratic, or mixed-vest all power in an
hereditary monarch, in a class or hereditary no.
bles, in a king and two houses of parliament,
one hereditary, the other elective, or both elective; or it may establish a single, dual, or triple
executive, make all officers of government hereditary or all elective, and if elective, elective for
a longer or a shorter time, by universal suffrage
or a select body of electors.   Any  of these
forms and systems, and many others besides,
are or may be legitimate, if established and
maintained by the national will. There is
nothing in the law of God or of nature, antecedently to the national will, that gives any one
of them a right to the exclusion of any one of
the others. The imperial system in France is as
legitimate as the federative system in the
United States. The only form or system that
181 
TITE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
is necessarily illegal is the despotic. That can
never be a truly civilized government, nor a
legitimate government, for God has given to
man no dominion over man. He gave men, as
St. Augustine says, and Pope St. Gregory the
Great repeats, dominion over the irrational
creation, not over the rational, and hence the
primitive rulers of men were called pastors or
shepherds, not lords. It may be the duty of
the people subjected to a despotic government
to demean themselves quietly and peaceably
towards it, as a matter of prudence, to avoid
sedition, and the evils that would necessarily
follow  an attempted revolution, but not because, founded as it is on mere force, it has
itself any right or legality.
All other forms of government are republican in their essential constitution, founded on
public right, and held under God from and for
the commonowealth, and which of them is wisest
and best for the commonwealth is, for the most
part, an idle question.   "Forms  of government," somebody has said, "are like shoesthat is the best form which best fits the feet
that are to wear them." Shoes are to be fitted
to the feet, not the feet to the shoes, and feet
vary in size and conformation. There is, in regard
to government, as distinguished from the state,
182 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNXMENT.
no antecedent right which binds the people, for
antecedently to the existence of the government as a fact, the state is free to adopt any
form that it finds practicable, or judges the
wisest and best for itself. Ordinarily the form
of the government practicable for a nation is
determined by the peculiar providential constitution of the territorial people, and a form of
government that would be practicable and
good in one country may be the reverse in
another. The English government is no doubt
the best practicable in Great Britain, at present
at least, but it has proved a failure wherever
else it has been attempted. The American system has proved itself, in spite of the recent
formidable rebellion to overthrow it, the best
and only practicable government for the United
States, but it is impracticable everywhere else,
and all attempts by any European or other
American state to introduce it can end only
in disaster. The imperial system apparently
works well in France, but though all European
states are tending to it, it would not work well
at all on the American continent, certainly not
until the republic of the United States has
ceased to exist. While the United States remain the great American power, that system, or
its kindred system, democratic centralism, can
183 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
never become an American system, as Maximilian's experiment in Mexico is likely to prove.
Political propagandism, except on the Roman
plan, that is, by annexation and incorporation,
is as imlpracticable as it is wanting in the respect that one independent people owes to
another.   The old Frenchl Jacobins tried  to
propagate, even with fire and sword, their system throughout Europe, as the only system
compatible with the rights of man. The English, since 1688, have been great political propagandists, and at one time it seemed not unlikely that every European state would try the
experiment of a parliamentary government,
composed of an hereditary crown, an hereditary house of lords, and an elective house of
commons. The democratic Americans are also
great political propagandists, and are ready to
sympathize with any rebellion, insurrection, or
movement in behalf of democracy in any part
of the world, however mean or contemptible,
fierce or bloody it may be; but all this is as
unstatesmanlike as unjust; unstatesmanlike,
for no form of government can bear transplanting, and because every independent nation is
the sole judge of what best comports with its
own interests, and its judgment is to be respected by the citizens as well as by the gov
184 
/
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
ernments of other states.  Religious propa.
gandism is a right and a duty, because religion
is catholic, and of universal obligation; and so
is the jug gentium of the Romans, which is only
the application to individuals and nations of
the great principles of natural justice; but no
political propagandism is ever allowable, because
no one form of government is catholic in its
nature, or of universal obligation.
Thoughtful Americans are opposed to political propagandism, and respect the right of
every nation to choose its own form of govern.
ment; but they hold that the American system
is the best in itself, and that if other nations
were as enlightened as the American, they
would adopt it. But though the American
system, rightly understood, is the best, as they
hold, it is not because other nations are less
enlightened, which is by no means a fact, that
they do not adopt, or cannot bear it, but solely
because their providential constitutions do not
require or admit it, and an attempt to introduce
it in any of them would prove a failure and a
grave evil.
Fit your shoes to your feet. The law of the
governmental constitution is in that of the nation. The constitution of the government must
grow out of the constitution of the state, and
185 
THE AMiERICAN REPUBLIC.
accord with the genius, the character, the habits,
customs, and wants of the people, or it will not
work well, or tend to secure the legitimate ends
of government.  The constitutions imagined by
philosophers are for Utopia, not for any actual, living, breathing people. You must take
the state as it is, and develop your govern.
mental constitution from it, and harmonize it
with it. Where there is a discrepancy between
the two constitutions the government has no
support in the state, in the organic people, or
nation, and can sustain itself only by corruption or physical force. A government may be
under the necessity of using force to suppress an
insurrection or rebellion against the national authority, or the integrity of the national territory,
but no government that can sustain itself,
not the state, only by physical force or large
standing armies, can be a good government, or
suited to the nation.  It nmust adopt the most
stringent repressive measures, suppress liberty
of speech and of conscience, outrage liberty
in what it has the most intimate and sacred,
and practise the most revolting violence and
cruelty, for it can govern only by terror. Such
a government is unsuited to the nation.
This is seen in all history: in the attempt
of the dictator Sulla to preserve the old patri
186 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
cian government against the plebeian power
that time and events had developed in the Roman state, and which was about to gain the supremacy, as we have seen, at Pharsalia, Philippi,
and Actium; in the efforts to establish a Jacobinical government in France in 1793; in Rome
in 1848, and the government of Victor Emmanuel in Naples in 1860 and 1861. These
efforts, proscriptions, confiscations, military executions, assassinations, massacres, are all made
in the name of liberty, or in defence of a government supposed to guaranty the well-being
of the state and the rights of the people. They
are rendered inevitable by the mad attempt to
force on a nation a constitution of government
foreign to the national constitution, or repugnant to the national tastes, interests, habits,
convictions, or whole interior life. The repressive policy, adopted to a certain extent by nearly
all European governments, grows out of the
madness of a portion of the people of the several
states in seeking to force upon the nation an
anti-national constitution.  The sovereigns may
not be very wise, but they are wiser, more national, more patriotic than the mad theorists
who seek to revolutionize the state and establish a government that has no hold in the national traditions, the national character, or the
187 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
national life; and the statesman, the patriot, the
true friend of liberty sympathizes with the national authorities, not with the mad theorists
and revolutionists.
The right of a nation to change its form of
government, and its magistrates or representatives, by whatever namne called, is incontestable.
Hence the French constitution of 1789, which
involved that of 1793, was not illegal, for
though accompanied by some irregularities, it
was adopted by the manifest will of the nation,
and consented to by all orders in the state.
Not its legality but its wisdom is to be questioned, together with the false and dangerous
theories of government which dictated it. There
is no compact or mutual stipulation between
the state and the government. The state, under God, is sovereign, and ordains and establishes the government, instead of making a
contract, a bargain, or covenant, with it. The
common democratic doctrine on this point is
right, if by people is understood the organic
people attached to a sovereign domain, not the
people as individuals or as a floating or nomadic
multitude. By people in the political sense,
Cicero, and St. Augustine after hirr, understood
the people as the republic, organized in reference
to the common or public good. With this under
e
188 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
standing, the sovereignty persists in the people,
and they retain the supreme authority over the
government.  The powers delegated are still the
powers of the sovereign delegating them, and
may be modified, altered, or revoked, as the
sovereign judges proper. The nation does not,
and cannot abdicate or delegate away its own
sovereignty, for sovereign it is, and cannot but
be, so long as it remains a nation not subjected
to another nation.
By the imperial constitution of the French
government, the imperial power is vested in
Napoleon III., and made hereditary in his
family, in the male line of his legitimate descendants. This is legal, but the nation has not
parted with its sovereignty or bound itself by
contract forever to a Napoleonic dynasty. Napoleon holds the imperial power "by the grace
of God  and the will of the nation," which
means simply that he holds his authority from
God, through the French people, and is bound
to exercise it according to the law of God and
the national will. The nation is as competent
to revoke this constitution as the legislature is
to repeal any law it is competent to enact, and
in doing so breaks no contract, violates no
right, for Napoleon and his descendants hold
their right to the imperial throne subject to the
189 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
national will from which it is derived. In case
the nation should revoke the powers delegated,
he or they would have no more valid claim to
the throne than have the Bourbons, whom the
nation has unmistakably dismissed from its
service.
The only point here to be observed is, that
the change must be by the nation itself, in its
sovereign capacity; not by a mob, nor by a part
of the nation conspiring, intriguing, or rebelling,
without any commission from the nation. The
first Napoleon governed by a legal title, but he
was never legally dethroned, and the government of the Bourbons, whether of the elder
branch or the younger, was never a legal government, for the Bourbons had lost their origi.
nal rights by the election of the first Napoleon,
and never afterwards had the national will in
their favor. The republic of 1848 was legal,
in the sense that the nation acquiesced in it as
a temporary necessity; but hardly anybody believed in it or wanted it, and the nation accepted it as a sort of locuim teenens, rather than willed
or ordained it. Its overthrow by the coup d'etat
may not be legally defensible, but the election
of Napoleon III. condoned the illegality, if there
was any, and gave the emperor a legal title,
that no republican, that none but a despot
190 
CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT.
or a no-goverilment man can dispute. As the
will of the nation, in so far as it contravenes
not the law of God or the law of nature, binds
every individual of the nation, no individual or
number of individuals has, or can have, any
right to conspire against him, or to labor to oust
him from his place, till his escheat has been pronounced by the voice of the nation. The state,
in its sovereign capacity, willing it, is the only
power competent to revoke or to change the form
and constitution of the imperial government.
The same must be said of every nation that has
a lawful government; and this, while it pre.
serves the national sovereignty, secures freedom
of progress, condemns all sedition, conspiracy,
rebellion, revolution, as does the Christian law
itself.
191 
TiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER IX.
THE UNITED STATES.
SOVEREIGNTY, under God, inheres in the organic people, or the people as the republic; and every
organic people fixed to the soil, and politically
independent of every other people, is a sovereign people, and, in the modern sense, an independent sovereign nation.
Sovereign states may unite in an alliance,
league, or confederation, and mutually agree
to exercise their sovereign powers or a portion
of them in common, through a common organ
or agency; but in this agreement they part
with none of their sovereignty, and each remains
a sovereign state or nation as before. The common organ or agency created by the convention
is no state, is no nation, has no inherent sovereignty, and derives all its vitality and force
from the persisting sovereignty of the states
severally that have united in creating it. The
agreement no more affects the sovereignty of
the several states entering into it, than does the
192 
THE UNITED STATES.
appointment of an agent affect the l'ights and
powers of the principal. The creature takes
nothing from the Creator, exhausts not, lessens
not his creative energy, andt it is only by his
retaining and continuously exerting his creative
power that the creature continues to exist.
An independent state or nation may, with or
without its consent, lose its sovereignty, but
only by being merged in or subjected to another.
Independent sovereign states cannot by convention, or mutual agreement, formi themselves into
a single sovereign state or nation.  The~ compiact, or agreement, is made by sovereign states,
and binds by virtue of the sovereign power of
each of the contracting parties. To destroy
that sovereign power would be to annul the
compact, and render void the agreement.  The
agreement can be valid and binding only on
condition that each of the contracting parties
retains the sovereignty that rendered it competent to enter into the compact, and states that
retain severally their sovereignty do not form a
single sovereign state or nation. The states in
convention cannot become a new and single
sovereign state, unless they lose their several
sovereignty, and merge it in the new sovereignty;
but this they cannot do by agreement, because
the moment the parties to the agreement cease
14
193
f 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
to be sovereign, the agreement, on which alone
depends the new sovereign state, is vacated, in
like manner as a contract is vacated by the
death of the contracting parties.
That a nation may voluntarily cede its sovereignty is frankly admitted, but it can cede it
only to something or somebody actually existing,
for to cede to nothing and not to cede is one
and the same thing. They can part with their
own sovereignty by merging themselves in, another national existence, but not by merging
themselves in nothing; and, till they have palted with their own sovereignty, the new sovereign state does not exist. A prince can abdicate his power, because by abdicating he simply
gives back to the people the trust he had received from them; but a nation cannot, save
by merging itself in another. An independent
state not merged in another, or that is not subject to another, cannot cease to be a sovereign
nation, even if it would.
That no sovereign state can be fo)rmed by
agreement or compact has already been shown
in the refutation of the theory of the origin of
government in convention, or the so-called social
compact. Sovereign states are as unable to form
themselves into a single sovereign state by
mutual compact as are the sovereign individ
1.94 
THEF UNITED STATES.
uals imagined by Rousseau.  The convention,
either of sovereign states or of sovereign individuals, with the best will in the world, can
form only a compact or agreement between sovereigns, and an agreement or compact, whatever
its terms or conditions, is only an alliance, a
league, or a confederation, which no  one can
pretend is a sovereign state, nation, or republic.
The question, then, whether the United States
are a single sovereign state or nation, or a confederacy of independent sovereign states, depends on the question whether the American
people originally existed as one people or as
several independent states. Mr. Jefferson maintains that before the convention of 1787 they
existed as several independent sovereign states,
but that since that convention, or the ratification
of the constitution it proposed, they exist as one
political people in regard to foreign nations,
and several sovereign states in regard to
their internal  and domestic  relations.   Mr.
Webster concedes that originally the States existed as severally sovereign states, but contends
that by ratifying the constitution they have been
made one sovereign political people, state, or
nation, and that the General government is
a supreme national government, though with a
reservation in favor of State rights. But both
195 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
are wrong. If the several States of the Union
were severally sovereign states when they met
in the convention, they are so now; and the
constitution is only an agreement or compact
between sovereigns, and the United States are,
as Mr. Calhoun maintained, only a confederation of sovereign states, and not a single state
or one political community.
But if the sovereignty persists in the States
severally, any State, saving its faith, may, whenever it chooses to do so, withdraw  from the
Union, absolve its subjects from all obligation
to the Federal authorities, and make it treason
in them to adhere to the Federal government.
Secession is, then, an incontestable right; not a
right held under the constitution or derived
from the convention, but a right held prior to
it, independently of it, inherent in the State
sovereignty, and inseparable from it. The State
is bound by the constitution of the Union
only while she is in it, and is one of the States
united. In ratifying the constitution she did
not part with her sovereignty, or with any portion of it, any more than France has parted with
her sovereignty, and ceased to be an independent sovereign nation, by vesting the imperial
power in Napoleon III. and his legitimate heirs
male. The principal parts not with his power
196 
THE UNITED STATES.
to his agent, for the agent is an agent only by
virtue of the continued power of the principal.
Napoleon is emperor by the will of the French
people, and governs only by the authority of
the French nation, which is as competent to revokle the powers it has conferred on him, when
it judges proper, as it was to confer them. The
Union exists and governs, if the States are
sovereign, only by the will of the State, and she
is as competent to revoke the powers she has
delegated as she was to delegate them. The
Union, as far as she is concerned, is her creation,
and what she is competent to make she is
competent to unmake.
In seceding or withdrawing from the Union a
State may act very unwisely, very much against
her own interests and the interests of the other
members of the confederacy; but, if sovereign.
she in doing so only exercises her unquestionable
right. The other members may regret her
action, both for her sake and their own, but they
cannot accuse her or her citizens of disloyalty in
seceding, nor of rebellion, if in obedience to her
authority they defend their independence by
force of arms against the Union. Neither she
nor they, on the supposition, ever owed allegiance to the Union. Allegiance is due from
the citizen to the sovereign state, but never from
197 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
a sovereign state or from its citizens to any
other sovereign state. While the State is in the
Union the citizen owes obedience to the United
States, but only because his State has, in ratifying the Federal constitution, enacted that it and
all laws and treaties made under it shall be law
within her territory. The repeal by the State
of the act of ratification releases the citizen firomn
the obligation even of obedience, and renders it
criminal for him to yield it without her permission.
It avails nothing, on the hypothesis of the
sovereignty of the States as distinguished from
that of the United States, to appeal to the language or provisions of the Federal constitution.
That constitutes the government, not the state
or the sovereign.  It is ordained by the sovereign, and if the States were severally independent and sovereign states, that sovereign is the
States severally, not the States united. The constitution is law for the citizens of a State only
so long as the State remains one of the United
States.  No matter, then, how clear and express
the language, or stringent the provisions of the
constitution, they bind only the citizens of the
States that enact the constitution. The written
constitution is simply a compact, and obliges
only while the compact is continued by the
~
193 
THE UNITED STATES.
States, each for itself. The sovereignty of the
United States as a single or political people
must be established before any thing in the constitution can be adduced as denying the right
of secession.
That this doctrine would deprive the General
government of all right to enforce the laws of
the Union on a State that secedes, or the citizens thereof, is no doubt true; that it would
weaken the central power and make the Union
a simple voluntary association of states, no better than a rope of sand, is no less true; but
what then?  It is simply saying that a confederation is inferior to a nation, and that a federal
government lacks many of the advantages of a
national government. Confederacies are always
weak in the centre, always lack unity, and are
liable to be dissolved by the influence of local
passions, prejudices, and interests. But if the
United States are a confederation of states or
nations, not a single nation or sovereign state,
then there is no remedy.
If the Anglo-American colonies, when their
independence of Great Britain was achieved
and acknowledged, were severally sovereign
states, it has never since been in their power
to unite and form a single sovereign state, or to
form themselves into one indivisible sovereign
199 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
nation. They could unite only by mutual
agreement, which gives only a confederation, in
which each retains its own sovereignty, as two
individuals, however closely united, retain each
his own individuality. No sovereignty is of
conventional origin, and none can emerge from
the convention that did not enter it. Either the
states are one sovereign people or they are not.
If they are not, it is undoubtedly a great disadvantage; but a disadvantage that must be
accepted, and submitted to without a murmur.
Whether the United States are one sovereign
people or only a confederation is a question of
very grave importance. If they are only a confederation of states  and if they ever were severally
sovereign states, only a confederation they certainly are- state secession is an inalienable
right, and the government has had no right to
make war on the secessionists as rebels, or to
treat them, when their military power is broken,
as traitors, or disloyal persons. The honor of
the government, and of the people who have
sustained it, is then deeply compromised.
What then is the fact? Are the United
States politically'one people, nation, state, or
republic, or are they simply independent sov.
ereign states united in close and intimate alii
ance, league, or federation, by a mutual pact or
200 
THE UNITED STATES.
,ag,reement?  Were the people of the United
States who ordained and established the written constitution one people, or were they not?
If they were not before ordaining and establishing the government, they are not now; for
the adoption of the constitution did not and
could not make them one.  Whether they are
one or many is then simply a question of fact,
to be decided by the facts in the case, not by
the theories of American statesmen, the opinion
of jurists, or even by constitutional law itself.
The old Articles of Confederation and the later
Constitution can serve here only as historical
documents.  Constitutions and laws presuppose
the existence of a national sovereign from which
they emanate, and that ordains them, for they
are the formal expressionof a sovereign will. The
nation must exist as an historical fact, prior to the
possession or exercise of sovereign power, prior
to the existence of written constitutions and
laws of any kind, and its existence must be
established before they can be recognized as
having any legal force or vitality.
The existence of any nation, as an independent sovereign nation, is a purely historical fact,
for its right to exist as such is in the simple
fact that it does so exist. A nation de facto is
a nation de jure, and when we have ascertained
201 
TIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the fact, we have ascertained the right. There
is no right in the case separate fiom the factonly the fact must be really a fact. A people
hitherto a part of another people, or subject to
another sovereign, is not in fact a nation, because they have declared themselves independent, and have organized a government, and are
engaged in what promises to be a successful
struggle for independence. The struggle must
be practically over; the former sovereign must
have practically abandoned the effort to reduce
them to submission, or to bring them back
under his authority, and if he continues it,
does it as a matter of mere form; the postulant
must have proved his ability to maintain civil
government, and to fulfil within and without
the obligations which attach to every civilized nation, before it can be recognized as an
independent sovereign nation; because before
it is not a fact that it is a sovereign nation.
The prior sovereign, when no longer willing or able to vindicate his right, has lost it,
and no one is any longer bound to respect
it, for humanity demands not martyrs to lost
causes.
This doctrine may seem harsh, and untena ble even, to those sickly philanthropists who
are always weeping over extinct or oppressed
202 
THE UNITED STATES.
nationalities; but nationality in modern civilization is a fact, not a right antecedent to the fact.
The repugnance felt to this assertion arises
chiefly from using the word nation sometimes
in a strictly political sense, and sometimes in its
original sense of tribe, and understanding by it
not simply the body politic, but a certain relation of origin, family, kindred, blood, or race.
But God has made of one blood, or race, all the
nations of men; and, besides, no political rights
are founded by the law of nature on relations
of blood, kindred, or family. Under the patriarchal or tribal system, and, to some extent,
under feudalism, these relations form the
basis of government, but they are economical
relations rather than civil or political, and, under Christian and modern civilization, are restricted to the household, are domestic relations, and enter not the state or body politic,
except by way of reminiscence or abuse. They
are protected by the state, but do not found
or constitute it. The vicissitudes of time, the
revolutions of states and empires, migration,
conquest, and intermixture of families and
races, have rendered it impracticable, even if
it were desirable, to distribute people into nations according to their relations of blood or
descent.
203
I
I 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
There is no civilized nation now existing that
has been developed from a common ancestor
this side of Adam, and the most mixed are the
most civilized. The nearer a nation approaches
to a primitive people of pure unmixed blood,
the farther removed it is from civilization. All
civilized nations are political nations, and are
founded in the fact, not on rights antecedent
to the fact. A hundred or more lost nationali
ties went to form the Roman empire, and who
can tell us how many layers of crushed nationalities, superposed one upon another, serve for
the foundation of the present French, English,
Russian, Austrian, or Spanish nationalities?
What other title to independence and sovereignty, than the fact, can you plead in behalf
of any European nation?  Every one has absorbed and extinguished-no one can say how
many-nationalities, that once had as good a
right to be as it has, or can have. Whether
those nationalities have been justly extinguished or not, is no question for the statesman;
it is the secret of Providence. Failure in this
world is not always a proof of wrong; nor success, of right. The good is sometimes overborne, and the bad sometimes triumphs; but it
it is consoling, and even just, to believe that the
good oftener triumphs than the bad.
204 
THIE UNITED STATES.
In the political order, the fact, under God,
precedes the law.  The nation holds not from
the law, but the law holds from the nation.
Doubtless the courts of every civilized nation
recognize and apply both the law of nature and
the law of nations, but only on the ground that
they are included, or are presumed to be included, in the national law, or jurisprudence.
Doubtless, too, the nation holds from God, under the law of nature, but only by virtue of
the fact that it is a nation; and wheel it is a
nation dependent on no other, it holds from
God all the rights and powers of any independent sovereign nation. There is no right behind
the fact needed to legalize the fact, or to put
the nation that is in fact a nation in possession of full national rights. In the case of a
new nation, or people, lately an integral part
of another people, or subject to another people, the right of the prior sovereign must be
extinguished indeed, but the extinction of
that right is necessary to complete the fact,
which otherwise would be'only an initial,
inchoate fact, not a fait accompli. But that
right ceases when its claimant, willingly or
unwillingly, formally or virtually, abandons it;
and he does so when he practically abandons
the struggle, and shows no ability or intention
205
i 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
of soon renewing it with any reasonable pros.
pect of success.
The notion of right, independent of the fact
as applied to sovereignty, is founded in error.
Empty titles to states and kingdoms are of no
validity. The sovereignty is, under God, in the
nation, and the title and the possession are inseparable. The title of the Paleologi to the
Roman Empire of the East, of the king of Sicily,
the king of Sardinia, or the king of Spain-for
they are all claimants-to the kingdom of
Jerusalem founded by Godfrey and his crusaders, of the Stuarts to the thrones of England,
Ireland, and Scotland, or of the Bourbons to the
throne of France, are vacated and not worth the
parchment on which they are engrossed.  The
contrary opinion, so generally entertained, belongs to barbarism, not to civilization. It is in
modern society a relic of feudalism, which places
the state in the government, and makes the government a private estate-a private, and not a
public right-a right to govern the public, not a
right to govern held from or by the public.
The proprietor may be dispossessed in fact
of his estate by violence, by illegal or unjust
means, without losing his right, and another
may usurp it, occupy it, and possess it in fact
without acquiring any right or legal title to it.
206 
THE UNITED STATES.
The man who holds the legal title has the right
to oust him and re-enter upon his estate whenever able to do so. Here, in the economical
order, the fact and the right are distinguishable, and the actual occupant may be required
to show  his title-deeds.  Holding sovereignty
to be a private estate, the feudal lawyers very
properly distinguish between governments de
facto and governments de ju'e, and argue very
logically that violent dispossession of a prince
does not invalidate his title. But sovereignty,
it has been shown, is not in the government,
but in the state, and the state is inseparable
from the public domain. The people organized
and held by the domain or national territory,
are, under God, the sovereign nation, and remain
so as long as the nation subsists without subjection to another. The government, as distinguished from the state or nation, has only a
delegated authority, governs only by a commission from the nation. The revocation of the
commission vacates its title and extinguishes
its rights. The nation is always sovereign, and
every organic people fixed to the soil, and actually independent of every other, is a nation.
There can then be no independent nation de
facto that is not an independent nation de jure,
nor de jure that is not de facto. The moment a
.1
207
I 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
people cease to be an independent nation in
fact, they cease to be sovereign, and the moment
they become in fact an independent nation, they
are so of right. IHence in the political order
the fact and the right are born and expire to.
-gether; and when it is proved that a people are
in fact ad independent nation, there is no ques.
tion to be asked as to their right to be such nation.
In the case of the United States there is only
the question of fact. If they are in fact one
people they are so  in right, whatever  the
opinions and theories of statesmen, or even the
decisions of courts; for the courts hold from
the national authority, and the theories and
opinions of statesmen may be erroneous. Cer tain it is that the States in the American Union
have never existed and acted as severally sover eign states. Prior to independence, they were
colonies under the sovereignty of Great Britain,
and since independence they have existed and
acted only as states united. The colonists, be fore separation and independence, were British
subjects, and whatever rights the colonies had
they held by  charter or concession from the
British crown. The colonists never pretended
to be other than British subjects, and the alleged
ground of their complaint against the mother
country was not that she had violated their
208 
THE UNITED STATES.
natural rights as men, but their rights as British
subjects-rights, as contended by the colonists,
secured by the English constitution to all Eng
lishmen or British subjects. The denial to them
of these common rights of Englishmen they
called tyranny, and they defended themselves in
throwing off their allegiance to George III.,
on the ground that he had, in their regard,
become a tyrant, and the tyranny of the prince
absolves the subject from his allegiance.
In the Declaration of Independence they dedclared themselves independent states indeed,
but  not severally independent.  The declaration was not made by the states severally, but
by the states jointly, as the United States.
They unitedly declared their independence;
they carried on the war for independence, won
it, and were acknowledged by foreign powers
and by the mother country as the United
States, not as severally independent sovereign
states. Severally they have never exercised the
full powers of sovereign states; they have had
no  f    lag-symbol of sovereignty-recognized by
foreign powers, have made no foreign treaties,
held  no foreign relations, had  no commerce
foreign or interstate; coined no money, entered
into no alliances or confederacies with foreign
states or with one another, and in several re       15
I
209 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
spects have been more restricted in their powers
in the Union than they were as British colonies.
Colonies are initial or inchoate states, and
become complete states by declaring and winning their independence; and if the English
colonies, now the United States, had separately
declared and won their independence, they
would unquestionably have become separately
independent states, each invested by the law
of nature with all the rights and powers of a
sovereign nation. But they did not do this.
They declared and won their independence
jointly, and have since existed and exercised
sovereignty only as states united, or the United
States, that is, states sovereign in their union,
but not in their separation. This is of itself
decisive of the whole question.
But the colonists have not only never exercised the full powers of sovereignty save as
citizens of states united, therefore as one people, but they were, so far as a people at all, one
people even before independence. The colo-.
nies were all erected and endowed with their
rights and powers by one and the same national
authority, and the colonists were subjects of
one and the same national sovereign. Mr.
Quincy Adams, who almost alone among our
prominent statesmen maintains the unity of
210 
THE UNITED STATES.
the colonial people, adds indeed to their subjection to the same sovereign authority, community of origin, of language, manners, customs,
and law.  All these, except the last, or common law, may exist without national unity in
the modern political sense of the term nation.
The English common law was recognized by
the colonial courts, and in force in all the colonies, not by virtue of colonial legislation, but
by virtue of English authority, as expressed in
English  jurisprudence.   The  colonists were
under the Common Law, because they were
Englishmen, and subjects of the English sovereign. This proves that they were really one
people with the English people, though existing in a state of colonial dependence, and not a
separate people having nothing politically in
common with them but in the accident of having the same royal person for their king. The
union with the mother country was national,
not personal, as was the union existing between England and Hanover, or that still existing between the empire of Austria, formerly
Germany, and the kingdom of Hungary; and
hence the British parliament claimed, and not
illegally, the right to tax the colonies for the
support of the empire, and to bind them in all
cases whatsoever-a claim the colonies them
A -
211 
-THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
selves admitted in principle by recognizing and
observing the British navigation laws. The
people of the several colonies being really one
people before independence, in the sovereignty
of the mother country, must be so still, unless
they have since, by some valid act, divided
themselves or been divided into separate and
independent states.
The king, say the jurists, never dies, and the
heralds cry, "The  king is dead!  Live the
king!" Sovereignty never lapses, is never in
abeyance, and the moment it ceases in one people it is renewed in another. The British sov.
ereignty ceased in the colonies with independence, and the American took its place. Did
the sovereignty, which before independence
was in Great Britain, pass from Great Britain
to the States severally, or to the States united?
It might have passed to them severally, but did
it?  There is no question of law or antecedent
right in the case, but a simple question of fact,
and the fact is determined by determining who
it was that assumed it, exercised it, and has
continued to exercise it. As to this there is no
doubt. The sovereignty as a fact has been as.
sumed and exercised by the United States, the
States united, and never by the States separately, or severally.  Then as a fact the sover
212 
THE NITED STATES,
eignty that before independence was in Great
Britain, passed on independence to the States
united, and reappears in all its vigor in the
United States, the only successor to Great
Britain known to or recognized by the civilized world.
As the colonial people were, though distributed in distinct colonies, still one people, the
people of the United States, though distributed
into distinct and mutually independent States,
are yet one sovereign people, therefore a sovereign state or nation, and not a simple league
or confederacy of nations.
There is no doubt that all the powers exercised by the General Government, though em.
bracing all foreign relations and all general
interests and relations of all the States, might
have been exercised by it under the authority
of a mutual compact of the several States, and
practically the difference between the compact
theory and the national view would be very
little, unless in cases like that of secession. On
the supposition that the American people are
one political people, the government would
have the right to treat secession, in the sense in
which the seceders understand it, as rebellion,
and to suppress it by employing all the physi.
cal force at its command; but on the compact
213 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
theory it would have no such right.  But the
question now under discussion turns simply
on what has been and is the historical fact.
Before the States could enter into the compact
and delegate sovereign powers to the Union,
they must have severally possessed them. It
is historically certain that they did not possess
them before independence; they did not obtain
them by independence, for they did not severally succeed to the British sovereignty, to which
they succeeded only as States united. When,
then, and by what means did they or could
they become severally sovereign States?  The
United States having succeeded to the British
sovereignty in the Anglo-American colonies,
they came into possession of full national sover.
eignty, and have alone held and exercised it
ever since independence became a fact. The
States severally succeeding only to the colonies,
never held, and have never been competent to
delegate sovereign powers.
The old Articles of Confederation, it is conceded, were framed on the assumption that the
States are severally sovereign; but the several
States, at the same time, were regarded as forming one nation, and, though divided into separate States, the people were regarded as one
people. The Legislature of New York, as
214 
TIlE UNITED STATES.
early as 1782, calls for an essential change in
the Articles of Confederation, as proved to be
inadequate to secure the peace, security, and
prosperity of " the nation." All the proceedings
that preceded and led to the call of the convention of 1787 were based on the assumption that
the people of the United States were one people.  The States were called united, not con.
federated States, even in the very Articles of
Confederation themselves,  and  officially  the
United States were called " the Union." That
the united colonies by independence became
united States, and formed really one and only
one people, was in the thought, the belief, the
instinct of the great mass of the people.  They
acted as they existed through State as they had
previously acted through colonial organization,
for in throwing off the British authority there
was no other organization through which they
could act. The States, or people of the States,
severally sent their delegates to the Congress
of the  United  States, and  these  delegates
adopted the rule of voting in Congress by
States, a rule that might be revived without
detriment to national unity.   Nothing  was
mgore natural, then, than that Congress, cornm.
posed of delegates elected or appointed by
States, should draw up articles of confederation
11
215
I 
TIlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
rather than articles of union, in order, if for no
other reason, to conciliate the smaller States,
and to prevent their jealousy of the larger
States such as Virginia, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania.
Moreover, the Articles of Confederation were
drawn up and adopted during the transition
from colonial dependence to national independence. Independence was declared in 1776, but
it was not a fact till 1782, when the preliminary treaty acknowledging it was signed
at Paris. Till then the United States were not
an independent nation; they were only a people
struggling to become an independent nation.
Prior to that preliminary treaty, neither the
Union nor the States severally were sovereign.
The articles were agreed on in Congress in
1777, but they were not ratified by all the
States till May, 1781, and in 1782 the movement was commenced in the Legislature of New
York for their amendment. Till the organization under the constitution ordained by the
people of the United States in 178, and which
went into operation in 1789, the United States
had in reality only a provisional government,
and it was not till then that the national government was definitively organized, and the
line of demarcation between the General Gov
216 
THE UNITED STATES.
ernment and the particular State governments
was fixed.
The Confederation was an acknowledged failure, and was rejected by the American people,
precisely because it was not in harmony with
the unwritten or Providential constitution of
the nation; and it was not in harmony with
that constitution precisely because it recognized
~ States as severally sovereign, and substituted
confederation for union. The failure of confederation and the success of union are ample
proofs of the unity of the American nation.
The instinct of unity rejected State sovereignty
in 1787 as it did in 1861. The first and the
last attempt to establish State sovereignty have
failed, and the failure vindicates the fact that
the sovereignty is in the States united, not in
the States severally.
217
0 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER X
COXSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE constitution of the United States is twofold, written and unwritten, the constitution of
the people and the constitution of the government.
The written constitution is simply a law ordained by the nation or people instituting and
organizing the government; the unwritten constitution is the real or actual constitution of the
people as a state or sovereign community, and
constituting them such or such a state.  It is
Providential, not made by the nation, but born
with it. The written constitution is made and
ordained by the sovereign power, and presup.
poses that power as already existing and constituted.
The unwritten or Providential constitution
of the United States is peculiar, and difficult to
understand, because incapable of being fully
explained by  analogies borrowed from  any
other state historically known, or described
218
r, 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
by political philosophers. It belongs to the
Greco-Roman family, and is republican as distinguished from despotic constitutions, but it
comes under the head of neither monarchical
nor aristocratic, neither democratic nor mixed
constitutions, and creates a state which is
neither a centralized state nor a confederacy.
The difficulty of understanding it is augmented
by the peculiar use under it of the word tate,
which does not in the American system mean
a sovereign community or political society complete in itself, like France, Spain, or Prussia,
nor yet a political society subordinate to another
political society and dependent on it.  The
American States are all sovereign States united,
but, disunited, are no States at all. The rights
and powers of the States are not derived from
the United States, nor the rights and powers
of the United States derived from the States.
The simple fact is, that the political or sovereign people of the United States exists as united
States, and only as united States. The Union
and the States are coeval, born together, and
can exist only together. Separation is dissolution-the death of both. The United States
are a state, a single sovereign state; but this
single sovereign state consists in the union and
solidarity of States instead of individuals. The
219
0
i
a,i 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Union is in each of the States, and each of the
States is in the Union.
It is necessary to distinguish in the outset
between the United States and the government
of the United States, or the so-called Federal
government, which the convention refused, contrary to its first intention to call the national
government. That government is not a supreme
national government, representing all the powers
of the United States, but a limited government,
restricted by its constitution to certain specific
relations and interests. The United States are
anterior to that government, and the first question to be settled relates to their internal and
inherent Providential constitution as one political people or sovereign state. The written
constitution, in its preamble, professes to be
ordained by "We, the people of the United
States." Who are this people? How are they
constituted, or what the mode and conditions
of their political existence? Are they the people of the States severally?  No; for they call
themselves the people of the United States.
Are they a national people, really existing outside and independently of their organization
into distinct and mutually independent States?
No; for they define themselves to be the peo.
ple of the United States. If they had considered
22.0 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
themselves existing as States only, they would
have said "We, the States," and if independently
of State organization, they would have said
"We, the people," do ordain, &c.
The key to the mystery is precisely in this
appellation  United States, which is not the
name of the country, for its distinctive name
is America, but a name expressive of its
political organization. In it there are no sovereign people without States, and no States
without union, or that are not united States.
IThe term united is not part of a proper name,
but is simply an adjective qualifying States,
and has its full and proper sense. Hence while
the sovereignty is and must be in the States, it is
in the States united, not in the States severally,
precisely as we have found the sovereignty of
the people is in the people collectively or as
society, not in the people individually. The life
is in the body, not in the members, though the
body could not exist if it had no members; so
the sovereignty is in the Union, not in the Stateg
severally; but there could be no sovereign
union without the States, for there is no union
where there is nothing united.
This is not a theory of the constitution, but
the constitutional fact itself. It is the simple
historical fact that precedes the law and con
221 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
stitutes the law-making power. The people of
the United States are one people, as has already
been proved: they were one people, as far as a
people at all, prior to independence, because
under the same Common Law and subject to the
same sovereign, and have been so since, for as
tnited States they gained their independence
and took their place among sovereign nations,
and as united States they have possessed and
still possess the government. As their existence before independence in distinct colonies
did not prevent their unity, so their existence
since in distinct States does not hinder them
from being one people. The States severally
simply continue the colonial organizations, and
united they hold the sovereignty that was
originally in the mother country. But if one
people, they are one people existing in distinct
State organizations, as before independence they
were one people existing in distinct colonial
organizations. This is the original, the unwritten, and Providential constitution of the
people of the United States.
This constitution is not conventional, for it
existed before the people met or could meet in
convention. They have not, as an independent
sovereign people, either established their union,
or distributed themselves into distinct and mu
222 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
tually independent States. The union and the
distribution, the unity and the distinction, are
both original in their constitution, and they
were born United States, as much and as truly
so as the son of a citizen is born a citizen, or as
every one born at all is born a member of society, the family, the tribe, or the nation. The
Union and the States were born together, are
inseparable in their constitution, have lived and
grown up together; no serious attempt till the
late secession movement has been made to
separate them; and the secession movement,
to all persons who knew not the real constitu.
tion of the United States, appeared sure to sueceed, and in fact would have succeeded if, as
the secessionists pretended, the Union had been
only a confederacy, and the States had been
held together only by a conventional compact,
and not by a real and living bond of unity.
The popular instinct of national unity, which
seemed so weak, proved to be strong enough to
defeat the secession forces, to trample out the
confederacy, and maintain the unity of the nation and the integrity of its domain.
The people can act only as they exist, as they
are, not as they are not. Existing originally
only as distributed in distinct and mutually independent colonies, they could at first act only
223
flt 
ITHE AMlERICAN REPUBLIC.
through their colonial organizations, and afterward only through their State organizations.
The colonial people met in convention, in the
person of representatives chosen by colonies,
and after independence in the person of representatives chosen by States. Not existing outside
of the colonial or State organizations, they could
not act outside or independently of them. They
chose their representatives or delegates by colonies or States, and called at first their convention a Congress; but by an instinct surer than
their deliberate wisdom, they called it not the
Congress of the confederate, but of the United
States, asserting constitutional unity as well as
constitutional multiplicity. It is true, in their
first attempt to organize a general government,
they called the constitution they devised Articles of Confederation, but only because they had
not attained to full consciousness of themselves;
and that they really meant union, not confederation, is evident from their adopting, as the
official style of the nation or new power, united,
not confederate States.
That the sovereignty vested in the States
united, and was represented in some sort by the
Congress, is evident from the fact that the sever
al States, when they wished to adopt State constitutions in place of colonial charters, felt not
224 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
at liberty to do so without asking and obtaining the permission of Congress, as the elder
Adams informs us in his -Diary, kept at the
time; that is, they asked and obtained the
equivalent of what has since, in the case of organizing new States, been called an "enabling
act." This proves that the States did not regard
themselves as sovereign States out of the Union,
but as completely sovereign only in it. And
this again proves that the Articles of Confederation did not correspond to the real, living constitution of the people. Even then it was felt
that the,organization and constitution of a State
in the Union could be regularly effected only
by the permission of Congress; and no Territory
can, it is well known, regularly organize itself
as a State, and adopt a State constitution, without an enabling act by Congress, or its equivalent.
New States, indeed, have been organized and
been admitted into the Union without an enabling act of Congress; but the case of Kansas, if
nothing else, proves that the proceeding is irreg.
ular, illicit, invalid, and dangerous.  Congress,
of course, can condone the wrong and validate
the act, but it were better that the act should
be validly done, and that there should be no
wrong to condone. Territories have organized
16
225 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
as States, adopted State constitutions, and insti.
tuted State governments under what has been
called "squatter sovereignty;" but such sovereignty has no existence, because sovereignty is
attached to the domain; and the domain is in
the United States. It is the offspring of that
false view of popular sovereignty which places
it in the people personally or generically, irrespective of the domain, which makes sovereignty
a purely personal right, not a right fixed to
the soil, and is simply a return to the barbaric constitution of power. In all civilized
nations, sovereignty is inseparable from the
state, and the state is inseparable from the
domain. The will of the people, unless they
are a state, is no law, has no force, binds nobody, and justifies no act.
The regular process of forming and admitting
new States explains admirably the mutual relation of the Union and the several States. The
people of a Territory belonging to the United
States or included in the public domain not
yet erected into a State and admitted into the
Union, are subjects of the United States, without any political rights whatever, and, though
a part of the population, are no part of the sov.
ereign people of the United States. They become a part of that people, with political rights
226 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   227
and franchises, only when they are erected into
a State, and admitted into the Union as one of
the United States. They may meet in conven tion, draw up and adopt a constitution declaring
or assuming them to be a State, elect State
officers, senators, and representatives in the
State legislature, and representatives and senators in Congress, but they are not yet a State,
and are, as before, under the Territorial govern.
ment established by the General Government.
It does not exist as a State till recognized by
Congress and admitted into the Union. The
existence of the State, and the rights and powers
of the people within the State, depend on their
being a State in the Union, or a State united.
IIence a State erected on the national domain,
but itself outside of the Union, is not an independent foreign State, but simply no State at
all, in any sense of the term. As there is no
union outside of the States, so is there no State
outside of the Union; and to be a citizen either
of a State or of the United States, it is necessary
to be a citizen of a State, and of a State in the
Union. The inhabitants of Territories not yet
erected into States are subjects, not citizensthat is, not citizens with political rights. The sovereign people are not the people outside of State
organization, nor the people of the States sever. 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ally, but the distinct people of the several States
united, and therefore most appropriately called
the people of the ULnited States.
This is the peculiarity of the American constitution, and is substantially the very peculiarity noted and dwelt upon by Mr. Madison in
his masterly letter to Edward Everett, published
in the "North American Review," October, 1830.
"In order to understand the true character
of the constitution of the United States," says
Mr. Madison, "the error, not uncommon, must
be avoided of viewing it through the medium
either of a consolidated government or of a
confederated government, whilst it is neither
the one nor the other, but a mixture of both.
And having, in no model, the similitudes and
analogies applicable to other systems of government, it must, more than any other, be its own
interpreter, according to its text and tUe facts
in the case.
"From these it will be seen that the characteristic peculiarities of the constitution are: 1.
The mode of its formation. 2. The division of
the supreme powers of government between the
States in their united capacity and the States in
their individual capacities.
"1. It was formed not by the governments
of the component States, as the Federal Govern
228 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   229
ment, for which it was substituted, was formed;
nor was it formed by a majority of the people
of the United States as a single community, in
the manner of a consolidated government. It
was formed by the States; that is, by the peo.
ple in each of the States, acting in their highest
sovereign capacity, and formed consequently by
the same authority which formed the State constitution.
"Being thus derived from the same source as
the constitutions of the States, it has within
each State the same authority as the constitution of the State, and is as much a constitution
in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the constitutions of the States
are within their respective spheres; but with
this obvious and essential difference, that, being
a compact among the States in their highest
capacity, and constituting the people thereof
one people for certain purposes, it cannot be
altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the constitution of a State may
be at its individual will.
" 2. And that it divides the supreme powers
of government between the government of the
United States and the governments of the individual States, is stamped on the face of the
instrument; the powers of war and of taxation, 
THE AMERICOAN REPUBLIC.
of commerce and treaties, and other enumerated
powers vested in the government of the United
States, are of as high and sovereign a character
as any of the powers reserved to the State
governments."
Mr. Jefferson, Mr.Webster, Chancellor Kent,
Judge Story, and nearly all the old Republicans, and even the old Federalists, on the
question as to what is the actual constitution
of the United States, took substantially the
same view; but they all, as well as Mr. Madison himself, speak of the written constitution,
which on their theory has and can have only a
conventional value.  Mr. Madison  evidently
recognizes no constitution of the people prior
to the written constitution, from which the
written constitution, or the constitution of the
government, derives all its force and vitality.
The organization of the American people, which
he knew well,-no man better,-and which he so
justly characterizes, he supposes to have been
deliberately formed by the people themselves,
through the convention-not given them by
Providence as their original and inherent constitution. But this was merely the effect of the
general doctrine which he had adopted, in common with nearly all his contemporaries, of the
origin of the state in compact, and may be
230 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    231
eliminated from his view of what the constitution actually is, without affecting that view
itself.
Mr. Madison lays great stress on the fact
that though the constitution of the Union was
formed by the States, it was formed, not by the
governments, but by the people of the several
States; but this makes no essential difference,
if the people are the people of the States, and
sovereign in their severalty, and not in their
union. Had it been formed by the State gov.
ernments with the acquiescence of the people,
it would have rested on as high authority as if
formed by the people of the State in convention assembled. The only difference is, that if
the State ratified it by the legislature, she could
abrogate it by the legislature; if in convention,
she could abrogate it only in convention. Mr.
Madison, following Mr. Jefferson, supposes the
constitution makes the people of the several
States one people for certain specific purposes,
and leaves it to be supposed that in regard to
all other matters, or in all other relations, they
are sovereign; and hence he makes the government a mixture of a consolidated government
and a confederated government, but neither the
one nor the other exclusively. Say the people
of the United States were one people in all
i 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
respects, and under a government which is
neither a consolidated nor a confederated government, nor yet a mixture of the two, but a
government in which the powers of government
are divided between a general government and
particular governments, each emanating from
the same source, and you will have the simple
fact, and precisely what Mr. Madison means,
when is eliminated What is derived from his
theory of the origin of government in compact.
It is this theory of the conventional origin of
the constitution, and which excludes the Providential or real constitution of the people, that
has misled him and so many other eminent
statesmen and constitutional lawyers.
The convention did not create the Union or
unite the States, for it was assembled by the
authority of the United States who were present in it.  The United States or Union existed
before the convention, as the convention itself
affirms in declaring one of its purposes to be
"to provide for a more perfect union." If there
had been no union, it could not and would not
have spoken of providing for a more perfect
union, but would have stated its purpose to be
to create or form a union. The convention did
not form the Union, nor in fact provide for a
more perfect union; it simply provided for the
232 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
more perfect representation or expression in the
General government of the Union already existing.   The convention,  in common with the
statesmen at the time, recognized no unwritten
or Providential constitution of a people, and
regarded the constitution of government as
the constitution of the state, and consequently sometimes put the state for the government.
In interpreting its language, it is necessary to
distinguish between its act and its theory. Its
act is law, its theory is not. The convention
met, among other things, to organize a governinent which should more perfectly represent
the union of the States than did the government created by the Articles of Confederation.
The convention, certainly, professes to grant
or concede powers to the United States, and to
prohibit powers to the States; but it simply
puts the state for the government. The powers of the United States are, indeed, grants or
trusts, but from God through the law of nature,
and are grants, trusts, or powers always conceded to every nation or sovereign people. But
none of them are grants from the convention.
The powers the convention grants or concedes
to the United States are powers granted or conceded by the United States to the General government it assembled to organize and establish,
I
233 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
which, as it extends over the whole population
and territory of the Union, and, as the interests
it is charged with relate to all the States in
common, or to the people as a whole, is with
no great impropriety called the government of
the United States, in contradistinction from the
State governments, which have each only a
local jurisdiction. But the more exact term
is, for  the  one,  the  general  government,
and for the others, particular governments, as
having charge only of the particular interests
of the State; and the two together constitute the government of the United States,
or the complete national government; for
neither the General government nor the State
government is complete in itself. The convention developed a general government, and prescribed its powers, and fixed their limits and
extent, as well as the bounds of the powers
of the State or particular governments; but
they are the United States assembled in convention that do all this, and, therefore, strictly
speaking, no powers are conceded to the United
States that they did not previously possess.
The convention itself, in the constitution it ordained, defines very clearly from whom  the
General government holds its powers. It holds
them, as we have seen, from "We, the people
234 
CONSTITUTION OF THIE UNITED STATES.   235
of the United States;" not we, the people of the
States severally, but of the States united. If
it had meant the States severally, it would
have said, We, the States; if it had recognized and meant the population of the country
irrespective of its organization into particular States, it would have said simply, We, the
people. By saying "We, the people of the
United States," it placed the sovereign power
where it is, in the people o0 the States united.
The convention ordains that the powers not
conceded to the General government or prohibited to the particular governments, " are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."
But the powers reserved to the States severally
are reserved by order of the United States, and
the powers not so reserved are reserved to the
people. What people? The first thought is that
they are the people of the States severally; for
the constitution understands by people the
state as distinguished from the state governmenlt; but if this had been its meaning in this
place, it would have said, "are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people" thereof. As
it does not say so, and does not define the people it means, it is necessary to understand by
them the people called in the preamble "the
people of the United States." This is con 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
firmed by the authority reserved to amend the
constitution, which certainly is not reserved
to the States severally, but necessarily to the
power that ordains the constitution-" We, the
people of the United States."  No power except that which ordains is or can be competent to amend a constitution of government.
The particular mode prescribed by the convention in which the constitution of the gov.
ernment may be amended has no bearing on
the present argument, because it is prescribed
by the States united, not severally, and the
power to amend is evidently reserved, not
indeed to the General government, but to the
United States; for the ratification by any State
or Territory not in the Union counts for nothing.
The States united, can, in the way prescribed,
give more or less power to the General government, and reserve more or less power to the
States individually.   The  so-called  reserved
powers are really reserved to the people of the
United States, who can make such disposition
of them as seems to them good.
The conclusion, then, that the General gov.
ernment holds from the States united, not from
the States severally, is not invalidatec by the
fact that its constitution was completed only
by the ratification of the States in their individ
236 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   237
ual capacity. The ratification was made necessary by the will of the people in convention
assembled; but the convention was competent
to complete it and put it in force without that
ratification, had it so willed. The general practice under the American system is for the
convention to submit the constitution it has
agreed on to the people, to be accepted or rejected by a p7lebi,citum; but such submission,
though it may be wise and prudent, is not
necessary. The convention is held to be the
convention of the people, and to be clothed
with the full authority of the sovereign people,
and it is in this that it differs from the congress
or the legislature. It is not a congress of delegates or ministers who are obliged to act under
instructions, to report their acts to their respective sovereigns for approval or rejection; it
is itself sovereign, and may do whatever the
people themselves can do. There is no necessity for it to appeal to a pleb6iscitem to complete its acts. That the convention, on the
score of prudence, is wise in doing so, nobody
questions; but the convention is always competent, if it chooses, to ordain the constitution
without appeal. The power competent to ordain the constitution is always competent to
change, modify, or amend it.  That amend 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ments to the constitution of the government
can be adopted only by being proposed by a
convention of all the States in the Union, or by
being proposed by a two-thirds vote of both
houses of Congress, and ratified by threefourths of the States, is simply a conventional
ordinance, which the convention can change at
its pleasure. It proves nothing as it stands but
the will of the convention.
The term  aticon itself, because the term
commonly used in reference to treaties between
sovereign powers, has been seized on, since
sometimes used by the convention, to prove
that the constitution emanates from the States
severally, and is a treaty or compact between
sovereign states, not an organic or fundamental
law ordained by a single sovereign will; but
this argument is inadmissible, because, as we
have just seen, the convention is competent to
ordain the constitution without submitting it
for ratification, and because the convention uses
sometimes the word adopt instead of the word
ratify. That the framers of the constitution
held it to be a treaty, compact, or agreement
among sovereigns, there is no doubt, for they
so held in regard to all constitution of government; and there is just as little doubt that they
intended to constitute, and firmly believed that
238 
CONSTITUTION OF THIE UNITED STATES.   239
they were constituting a real government. Mr.
Madison's authority on this point is conclusive.
They unquestionably regarded the States, prior
to the ratification of the constitution they pro.
posed, as severally sovereign, as they were declared to be by the old Articles of Confederation,
but they also believed that all individuals are
sovereign prior to the formation of civil society.
Yet very few, if any, of them believed that they
remained sovereign after the adoption of the constitution; and we may attribute to their belief
in the conventional origin of all government,the almost universal belief of the time among
political philosophers,-the little account which
they made of the historical facts that prove that
the people of the United States were always one
people, and that the States never existed as
severally sovereign states.
The political philosophers of the present day
do not generally accept the theory held by
our fathers, and it has been shown in these
pages to be unsound and incompatible with
the essential nature of government. The statesmen of the eighteenth century believed that the
state is derived from the people individually,
and held that sovereignty is created by the
people in convention. The rights and powers
of the state, they held, were made up of the 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
rights held by individuals under the law of na
ture, and which the individuals surrendered to
civil society on its formation.   So they supposed that independent sovereign states might
meet in convention, mutually agree to surrender
a portion of their rights, organize their surrendered rights into a real government, and
leave the convention shorn, at least, of a portion
of their sovereignty. This doctrine crops out
everywhere in the writings of the elder Adams,
and is set forth with rare ability by Mr. Webster, in his great speech in the Senate against
the State sovereignty doctrine of General Hayne
and Mr.  Calhoun, which  won for him the
honorable title of Expounder of the Constitution-and expound it he, no doubt, did in the
sense of its framers. He boldly concedes that
prior to the adoption of the constitution, the
people of the United States were severally sovereign states, but by the constitution they were
made one sovereign political community or
people, and that the States, though retaining
certain rights,have merged their several sovereignty in the Union.
The subtle mind of Mr. Calhoun, who  did
not hold that a state can originate in compact, proved to Mr. Webster that his theory
could not stand; that, if the States went into
240 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
the convention sovereign States, they came out
of it sovereign States; and that the constitution
they formed could from the nature of the case
be only a treaty, compact, or agreement between sovereigns. It could create an agency,
but not a government. The sovereign States
could only delegate the exercise of their sovereign powers, not the sovereign powers
themselves. The States could agree to exercise
certain specific powers of sovereignty only in
common, but the force  and vitality of the
agreement depended on the States, parties to
the  agreement,  retaining  respectively  their
sovereignty. Hence, he maintained that sovereignty, after as before the convention, vested
in the States severally.   Hence State sovereignty, and hence his doctrine that in all cases
that cannot come properly before the Supreme
Court of the United States for decision, each
State is free to decide for itself, on which he
based the right of nullification, or the State
veto of acts of Congress whose constitutionality the State denies. Mr. Calhoun was himself no secessionist, but he laid down the premises from which secession is the logical deduction; and large numbers of young men, among
the most open, the most generous, and the most
patriotic in the country, adopted his premises,
241
17 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
without being aware of this fact any more than
he himself was, and who have been behind
none  in their loyalty to the Union, and in
their sacrifices to sustain it, in the late rebel
lion.
The formidable rebellion which is now happily suppressed, and which attempted to justify
itself by the doctrine of State sovereignty, has
thrown, in many minds, new light on the subject, and led them to re-examine the historical
facts in the case from a different point of view,
to see if Mr. Calhoun's theory is not as unfounded as he had proved MIr. Webster's theory to be.
The facts in the case really sustain neither, and
both failed to see it: Mr. Calhoun because he
had purposes to accomplish which demanded
State sovereignty, and Mr. Webster because he
examined them in the distorting medium of the
theory or understanding of the statesmen of the
eighteenth century. The civil war has vindicated the Union, and defeated the armed forces
of the State sovereignty men; but it has not refuted their doctrine, and as far as it has had
any effect, it has strengthened the tendency to
consolidation or centralism.
But the philosophy, the theory of government, the understanding of the framers of the
constitution, must be considered, if the expres
242
#0 
CONSTITUTION OF THIE UNITED STATES.   243
sion will be allowed, as oiter dicta, and be
judged on their merits. What binds is the
thing done, not the theory on which it was
done, or on which the actors explained their
workl either to themselves or to others. Their
political philosophy, or their political theory,
may sometimes affect the phraseology they
adopt, but forms no rule for interpreting their
work. Their work was inspired by and accords with the historical facts in the case, and
is authorized and explained by them. The
American people were not made one people by
the written constitution, as Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Madison, Mr. Webster, and so many others
supposed, but were made so by the unwritten
constitution, born with and inherent in them. 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER XI.
"'IIE C O NS TI T UTI ON-CoNTINUED.
PPOVyDENcE, or God operating through historical facts, constituted the American people
one political or sovereign people, existing and
acting in particular communities, organizations,
called states. This one people organized as
states, meet in convention, frame and ordain the
constitution of government, or institute a
general government in place of the Continental Congress; and the same people, in their respective State organizations, meet in convention in each State, and frame and ordain a particular government for the State individually,
which, in union with the General government,
constitutes the complete and supreme government within the States, as the General
government, in union with all the particular
governments, constitutes the complete and
supreme government of the nation or whole
country. This is clearly the view taken by
Mr. Madison in his letter to Mr. Everett,
21A 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   245
when freed from his theory of the origin of government in compact.
The constitution of the people as one people,
and the distinction at the same time of this one
people into particular States, precedes the convention, and is the unwritten constitution, the
Providential constitution, of the American people or civil society, as distinguished from the
constitution of the government, which, whether
general or particular, is the ordination of civil
society itself. The unwritten constitution is
the creation or constitution of the sovereign,
and the sovereign providentially constituted
constitutes in turn the government, which  is
not sovereign, but is clothed with just so much
and just so little authority as the sovereign
wills or ordains.
The sovereign in the republican order is the
organic people, or state, and is with us the
United States, for with us the organic people ex.
ist only as organized into States united, which in
their union form one compact and indissoluble
whole. That is to say, the organic American
people do not exist as a consolidated people or
state; they exist only as organized into distinct
but inseparable States. Each State is a living
member of the one body, and derives its life
from its union with the body, so that the Amer 
TIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ican state is one body with many members;
and the members, instead of being simply in.
dividuals, are States, or individuals organized
into States.  The body consists of many miembers, and is one body, because the melmbers are all
members of it, and members one of another. It
does not exist as separate or distinct from the
members, but exists in their solidarity or miembership one of another. There is no sovereign
people or existence of the United States distinguishable from the people or existence of the
particular States united. The people of the
United States, the state called the United States,
are the people- of the particular States united. The
solidarity of the members constitutes the unity
of the body. The difference between this view
and Mr. Madison's is, that while his view supposes the solidarity to be conventional, originating and existing in compact, or agreement,
this supposes it to be real, living, and prior to
the convention, as much the work of Providence as the existence in the human body of the
living solidarity of its members.  One law, one
life, circulates through all the members, constituting them a living organism, binding them in
living union, all to each and each to all.
Such is the sovereign people, and so far the
original unwritten constitution. The sovereign,
246 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    247
in order' to live and act, must have an organ
through which he expresses his will. This
organ, under the American system, is primarily
the Convention. The convention is the supreme
political body, the concrete sovereign authority,
and exercises practically the whole sovereign
power of the people. The convention persists
always, although not in permanent session.  It
can at any time be convened by the ordinary
authority of the government, or, in its failure,
by a plebiscitumn.
Next follows the Government created and constituted by the convention. The government is
constituted in such manner, and has such and only
such powers, as the convention ordains. The government has, in the strict sense, no political authority under the American system, which separates
the government fi'om the convention. All political
questions proper, such as the elective franchise,
eligibility, the constitution of the several departmeuts of government, as the legislative, the
judicial, and the executive, changing, altering,
or amending the constitution of government,
enlarging or contracting its powers, in a word,
all those questions that arise on which it is necessary to take the immediate orders of the sovereign, belong not to the government, but to
the convention; and where the will of the sover
-6 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
eign is not sufficiently expressed in the con.
stitution, a new appeal to the convention is necessary, and may always be had.
The constitution of Great Britain makes no
distinction between the convention and the
government. Theoretically the constitution of
Great Britain is feudal, and there is, properly
speaking, no British state; there are only the
estates, king, lords, and commons, and these
three estates constitute the Parliament, which
is held to be omnipotent; that is, has the plenitude of political sovereignty. The British Parliament, composed of the three estates, possesses
in itself all the powers of the convention in the
American constitution, and is at once the convention and the government.   The  imperial
constitution of France recognizes no convention,
but clothes the senate with certain political
functions, which, in some respects, subjects theoretically the sovereign to his creature. The
emperor confessedly holds his power by the
grace of God and the will of the nation, which
is a clear acknowledgment that the sovereignty
vests in the French people as the French
state; but the imperial constitution, which is
the constitution of the government, not of the
state, studies, while acknowledging the sovereignty of the people, to render it nugatory, by
248 
CONSTITUTION OF THlE UNITED STATES.
transferring it, under various subtle disguises,
to the government, and practically to the emperor as chief of the government. The senate,
the council of state, the legislative body, and
the emperor, are all creatures of the French
state, and have properly no political functions,
and to give them such functions is to place the
sovereign under his own subjects! The real
aim of the imperial constitution is to secure
despotic power under the guise of republicanism. It leaves and is intended to leave the
nation no way of practically asserting its sovereignty but by either a revolution or a plebiscitum, and a p)ebiscitum is permissible only
where there is no regular government. -
The British constitution is consistent with
itself, but imposes no restriction on the power
of the government. The French imperial constitution is illogical, inconsistent with itself as
well as with the free action of the nation. The
American constitution has all the advantages
of both, and the disadvantages of neither. The
convention is not the government like the British Parliament, nor a creature of the state like
the French senate, but the sovereign state itself,
in a practical form. By means of the convention the government is restricted to its delegated
powers, and these, if found in practice either
249 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
too great or too small, can be enlarged or contracted in a regular, orderly way, without resorting to a revolution or to a plebiycittm.
Whatever political grievances there may be, there
is always present the sovereign convention comnpetent to redress them. The efficiency of power
is thus secured without danger to liberty, and
freedom without danger to power. The recognition of the convention, the real political sovereign of the country, and its separation from
and independence of the ordinary government
is one of the most striking features of the
American constitution.
The next thing to be noted, after the convention, is the constitution by the convention of
the government.   This constitution, as  Mr.
Madison well observes, divides the powers conceded by the convention to government between
the General government and the particular State
governments. Strictly speaking, the govern.
ment is one, and its powers only are divided
and exercised by two sets of agents or ministries.
This division of the powers of government could
never have been established by the convention
if the American people had not been providen.
tially constituted one people, existing and acting through particular State organizations. Here
the unwritten constitution, or the constitution
250 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   251
written in the  people themselves, rendered
practicable and dictated the written constitution, or constitution ordained by the convention
and engrossed on parchment.  It only expresses
in the government the fact which pre-existed in
the national organization and life.
This division of the powers of government is
peculiar to the United States, and is an effective
safeguard against both feudal disintegration and
Roman centralism. Misled by their prejudices
and peculiar interests, a portion of the people
of the United States, pleading in their justification the theory of State sovereignty, attempted
disintegration, secession, and national independence separate from that of the United States,
but the central force of the constitution was too
strong for them to succeed.  The unity of the
nation was too strong to be effectually broken.
No doubt the reaction against secession and
disintegration will strengthen the tendency to
centralism, but centralism can succeed no better
than disintegration has succeeded, because the
General government has no gubgistentia, no guppositum, to borrow a theological term, outside
or independent of the States. The particular
governments are stronger, if there be any difference, to protect the States against centralism,
than the General government is to protect the 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Union against disintegration; and after swing
ing for a time too far toward one extreme and
then too far toward the other, the public mind
will recover its equilibrium, and the government move on in its constitutional path.
Republican Rome attempted to guard against
excessive centralism by the tribunitial veto, or
by the organization of a negative or obstructive
power. Mr. Calhoun thought this admirable,
and wished to effect the same end here, where
it is secured by other, more effective, and less
objectionable means, by a State veto on the acts
of Congress, by a dual executive, and by substituting concurrent for numerical majorities.
Imperial Rome gradually swept away the tribunitial veto, concentrated all power in the
hands of the emperor, became completely centralized, and fell.   The British constitution
seeks the same end by substituting estates for
the state, and establishing a mixed government,
in which monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy
temper, check, or balance each other; but practically the commons estate has become supreme,
and the nobility govern not in the house of
lords, and can really influence public affairs
onlythrough the house of commons. The prin.
ciple of the British constitution is not the division of the powers of government, but the an
I
252 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
tagonism of estates, or rather of interests, trusting
to the obstructive influence of that antagonism
to preserve the government from pure central.
ism. Hence the study of the British statesman
is to manage diverse and antagonistic parties
and interests so as to gain the ability to act,
which he can do only by intrigue, cajolery,
bribery in one form or another, and corruption
of every sort. The British government cannot
be carried on by fair, honest, and honorable
means, ally more than could the Roman under
the antagonism created by the tribunitial veto.
The French tried the English system of organized antagonism in 1789, as a cure for the centralism introduced by Richelieu and Louis XIV.,
and again under the Restoration and Louis Philippe, and called it the system of constitutional
guarantees; but they could never manage it,
and they have taken refuge in unmitigated
centralism under Napoleon III., who, however
well disposed, finds no means in the constitution of the French nation of tempering it. The
English system, called the constitutional, and
sometimes the parliamentary system, will not
work in France, and indeed works really well
nowhere.
The American system, sometimes called the
Federal system, is not founded on antagonism
253 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
of classes, estates, or interests, and is in no
sense a system of checks and balances.  It
needs and tolerates no obstructive forces. It
does not pit section against section, the States
severally against the General government, nor
the General government against the State gov.
ernments, and nothing is more hurtful than the
attempt to explain it and work it on the principles of British constitutionalism. The convention created no antagonistic powers; it simply divided the powers of government, and
gave neither to the General government nor to
the State governments all the powers of government, nor in any instance did it give to the two
governments jurisdiction in the same matters.
Hence each has its own sphere, in which it can
move on without colliding with that of the
other. Each is independent and complete in
relation to its own work, incomplete and de.
pendent on the other for the complete work of
government.
The division of power is not between a NATIONAL government and State governments, but
between a GENERAL governmen and particular
governments. The General,government, inasmuch as it extends to matters common to all
the States, is usually called the Government of
the United States, and sometimes the Federal
254 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
government, to distinguish it from the particular or State governments, but without strict
propriety; for the government of the United
States, or the Federal government, means, ip
strictness, both the General government and the
particular governments, since neither is in itself
the complete government of the counltry. The
General government has authority within each
of the States, and each of the State governments
has authority in the Union. The line between
the Union and the States severally, is not precisely the line between the General government
and the particular governments. As, for instance, the General government lays direct taxes
on the people of the States, and collects internal
revenue within them; and the citizens of a particular State, and none others, are electors of
President and Vice-President of the United
States, and representatives in the lower house
of Congress, while senators in Congress are
elected by the State legislatures themselves.
The line that distinguishes the two governments is that which distinguishes the general
relations and interests from the particular relations and interests of the people of the United
States. These general relations and interests are
placed under the General government, which,
because its jurisdiction is coextensive with the
255 
TIlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Union, is called the Government of the United
States; the particular relations and interests
are placed under particular governments, which,
because their jurisdiction is only coextensive
with the States respectively, are called State
governments. The General government governs
supremely all the people of the United States
and Territories belonging to the Union, in all
their general relations and interests, or relations
and interests common alike to them all; the par.
ticular or State government governs supremely
the people of a particular State, as Massachusetts,
New York, or New Jersey, in all that pertains
to their particular or private rights, relations,
and interests. The powers of each are equally
sovereign, and neither are derived from the
other. The State governments are not subordinate to the General government, nor the General
government to the State governments.  They
are co-ordinate governments, each standing on
the same level, and deriving its powers from
the same sovereign authority. In their respec tive spheres neither yields to the other. In
relation to the matters within its jurisdiction,
each government is independent and supreme
in regard of the other, and subject only to the
conventioll.
256 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    257
The powers of the General government are
the power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
general welfare of the United States; to borrowv money on the credit of the United States;
to  regulate commerce  with foreign nations,
among the several States, and with the Indian
tribes; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies throughout the United States; to
coin money and regulate the value thereof, and
fix the standard of weights and measures; to
provide for the punishment of counterfeiting
the securities and current coin of the United
States; to establish post-offices and post-roads;
to promote the progress of science and of the
useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries; to define
and punish piracies and felonies committed on
the high seas, and offences against the law of
nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque
and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures
on land and water; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make
rules for the government of the land and naval
forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to
18 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
execute the laws of the Union, suppress insur.
rections, and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
and of governing such part of them as may be
employed in the service of the United States;
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever over such district, not exceeding ten
miles square, as may by cession of particular
States and the acceptance of Congress, become
the seat of the government of the United States,
and to exercise a like authority over all places
purchased by the consent of the legislature of
the State in which the same shall be, for the
erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards,
and other needful buildings; and to make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
and all other powers vested by this constitution
in the government of the United States, or in
any department or office thereof.
In addition to these, the General government is
clothed with the treaty-making power, and the
whole charge of the foreign relations of the country; with power to admit new States into the
Union; to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations concerning the territory and all
other property belonging to the United States; to
declare, with certain restrictions, the punishment
258 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    259
of treason, the constitution itself defining what
is treason against the United States; and to
propose, or to call, on the application of the
legislatures of two-thirds of all the states, a
convention for proposing amendments to this
constitution; and is vested with supreme judicial
power, original or appellate, in all cases of law
and equity arising under this constitution, the
laws of the United States, and treaties made or
to be made under their authority, in all cases
affecting ambassadors,.other public ministers,
and consuls, in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, in all controversies to which
the United States shall be a party, all controversies between two or more States, between a
State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the
same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citizens
thlereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.
These, with what is incidental to them, and
what is necessary and proper to carry them
into effect, are all the positive powers with
which the convention vests the General government, or government of the United States,
as distinguished from the governments of the
particular States; and these, with the exception
of what relates to the district in which it has 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
its seat, and places of forts, magazines, &c., are
of a general nature, and restricted to the common relations and interests of the people, or at
least to interests and relations which extend
beyond the limits of a particular State. They
are all powers that regard matters which extend
beyond not only the individual citizen, but the
individual State, and affect alike the relations
and interests of all the States, or matters which
cannot be disposed of by a State government
without the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction. They give the government no jurisdiction of questions which affect individuals or
citizens only in their private and domestic relations which lie wholly within a particular State.
The General government does not legislate concerning private rights, whether of persons or
things, the tenure of real estate, marriage,
dower, inheritance, wills, the transferrence or
transmission of property, real or personal; it
can charter no private corporations, out of the
District of Columbia, for business, literary,
scientific, or eleemosynary purposes, establish
no schools, found no colleges or universities,
and promote science and the useful arts only
by securing to authors and inventors for a time
the exclusive right to their writings and dis.
coveries. The United States Bank was man.
0
260 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    261
ifestly unconstitutional, as probably are the
present so-called national banks.  The United
States Bank was a private or particular corporation, and the present national banks are
only corporations of the same sort, though organized under a general law. The pretence
that they are established to supply a national
currency does not save their constitutionality,
for the convention has not given the General
government the power nor imposed on it the
duty of furnishing a national currency. To
coin money, and regulate the value thereof, is
something very differlnt from authorizing private companies to issue bank notes, on the
basis of the public stocks held as private property, or even on what is called a specie basis.
To claim the power under the general welfare
clause would be a simple mockery of good
sense.  It is no more for the generli1 welfare
than any other successful private business.
The private welfare of each is, no doubt, for
the welfare of all, but not therefore is it the
"general welfare," for what is private, particular in its nature, is not and cannot be general.
To understand by general welfare that which
is for the individual welfare of all or the greater
number, would be to claim for the General
government all the powers of government, and 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
to deny that very division of powers which is the
crowning merit of the American system. The
general welfare, by the very force of the words
themselves, means the common as distinguished
from the private or individual welfare. The
system of national banks may or may not be a
good and desirable system, but it is difficult to
understand the constitutional power of the
General government to establish it.
On the ground that its powers are general,
not particular, the General government has no
power to lay a protective tariff It can lay a
tariff for revenue, not for protection of home
manufactures or home industry; for the interests
fostered, even though indirectly advantageous to
the whole people, are in their nature private or
particular, not general interests, and chiefly interests of private corporations and capitalists. Their
incidental or even consequential effects do not
change their direct and essential nature. So
with domestic slavery. Slavery comes under
the head of private rights, whether regarded
on the side of the master or on the side of the
slave. The right of a citizen to hold a slave,
if a right at all, is the private right of property,
and the right of the slave to his freedom is a
private and personal right, and neither is placed
under the safegualrd of the General government,
262 
CONSTITUTION OF THlE UNITED STATES.
which has nowhere, unless in the District of
Columbia and the places over which it has exclusive legislative power ill all cases whatsoever,
either the right to establish it or to abolish it,
except perhaps under the war power, as a military necessity, an indemnity for the past, or a
security for the future.
Thlis applies to what are called Territories as
well as to the States.  The right of the government to govern the Territories in regard to pri.
vate and particular rights and interests, is derived from no express grant of power, and is
held only ex nece8ssitate —the United States
oNvning the domain, and there being no other
authority competent to govern them. But, as
in the case of all powers held ex necessitate,
the power is restricted to the absolute  necessity in the case. What are called Territorial
governments, to distinguish them from the
State governments, are only provisional governments, and can touch private rights and interests no further than is necessary to preserve
order and prepare the way for the organization
and installation of a regular State government.
Till then the law governing private rights is
the law that was in force, if any such there was,
when the territory became by purchase, by
263 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
conquest, or by treaty, attached to the domain
of the United States.
Hence the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in what was called the Territory of the
Northwest, andcl the so-called Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery north of the parallel
36~ 30'.  The  Wilmot proviso  was for  the
same reason unconstitutional.   The  General
government never had and has not any power
to exclude slavery from the Territories, any
more than to abolish it in the States.   But
slavery being a local  institution,  sustained
neither by the law of nature nor the law of
nations, no citizen migrating from a slave State
could carry his slaves with him, and hold them
as slaves in the Territory. PRights enacted by
local law are rights only in that locality, and
slaves carried by their masters into a slave
State even, are free, unless the State into which
they are carried enacts to the contrary.  The
only persons that could be held as slaves in a
Territory would be those who were slaves or
the children of those who were slaves in the
Territory when it passed to the United States.
The whole controversy on slavery in the Territories, and which culminated in the civil war,
was wholly unnecessary, and never could have
264 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   265
occurred had the constitution been properly understood and adhered to by both sides. True,
Congress could not exclude slavery from the
Terrlitory, but neither could citizens migrating tie
them hold slaves in them; and so really slavery
was virtually excluded, for the inhabitants in
nearly all of them, not emigrants from the
States after the cession to the United States,
were too few to be counted.
The General government has power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,  to
which all thle States must conform, and it was
very proper that it should have this power, so
as to prevent one State from gaining by its naturalization laws an undue advantage over another; but the General government has itself no
power to naturalize a single foreigner, or in any
case to say who shall or who shall not be citizens, either of a State or of the United States,
or to declare who may or may not be electors even of its own officers. The convention
ordains that members of the house of representatives shall be chosen by electors who have
the qualifications requisite for electors of the
most numerous branch of the State legislature,
but the State determines these qualifications, and
who do or do not possess them; that the senators shall be chosen by the State legislatures, and 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
that the electors of President and Vice-President
shall be appointed in such manner as the respective State legislatures may direct. The whole
question of citizenship, what shall or shall not
be the qualifica,ti,,ns of electors, who shall or
shall not be freeC,Peti, is reserved to the States, as
coming under the head of personal or private
rights and franchises.   In practice, the exact
line of demarcation may not always have been
strictly observed either by the General governmIent or by the State governments; but a careful study of the constitution cannot fail to show
that the division of powers is the division or distinction between the public and general relations and interests, rights and  duties of the
people, and their private and particular rela
tions and interests, rights and duties. As these
two classes of relations and interests, rights and
duties, though distinguishable, are really insep.
arable in nature, it follows that the two governments are essential to the existence of a complete government, or to the existence of a real
government in its plenitude and integrity.
Left to either alone, the people would have only
an incomplete, an initial, or inchoate govern ment.   The General government is the com plement of the State governments, and the
266 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.   267
State governments are the complement of the
General government.
The consideration of the powers denied by
the convention to the General government and
to the State governments respectively, will lead
to the same conclusion. To the General government is denied expressly or by necessary
implication all jurisdiction in matters of private rights and interests, and to the State governmuent is denied all jurisdiction in rights or
interests which extend, as has been said, beyond the boundaries of the State.  "No State
shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal;
coin money, emit bills of credit, make any
thing but gold and silver coin a tender in the
payment of debts; pass anIy bill of attainder, ex
Io)st facto law, or law impairing the obligation
of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No
State shall, without the consent of Congress,
lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing its inspection laws, and the net
produce of all duties and imposts laid by any
State on impolrts and exports shall be for the
use of the treasury of the United States, and
all such laws shall be sublject. to the revision
and control of Congress.  No State shall, with 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
out the consent of Congress, lay any duty of
tonnage, keep troops or ships-of-war in time of
peace, enter into any agreement or compact
with another State or with a foreign power, or
engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in
such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
The powers denied to the States in some
matters which are rather private and particular,
such as bills of attainder, ex post facto laws,
laws  impairing  Me  obligation of  contracts,
granting titles of nobility, are denied equally
to the General government.  There is evidently
a profound logic in the constitution, and there
is not a single provision in it that is arbitrary,
or anomalous, or that does not harmonize dialectically with the whole, and with the real
constitution of the American people. At first
sight the reservation to the State of the appointment of the officers of the militia miglit seem
an anomaly; but as the whole subject of internal police belongs to the State, it should have
some military force at its command. The subject of bankruptcies, also, might seem to be
more properly within the province of the State,
and so it would be if commerce between the
several States had not been placed under Congress, or if trade were confined to the citizens
oi 68 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
of the State and within its boundaries; but
as such is not the case, it was necessary to place
it under the General government, in order that
laws on the subject might be uniform throughout the Union, and that the citizens of all the
States, and foreigners trading with them, should
be placed on an equal footing, and have the
same remedies. The subject follows naturally
in the train of commierce, for bankruptcies, as
understood at the time, were confined to the
mercantile class, bankers, and  broke:'s; and
since the regulation of commerce, foreign and
inter-state, was to be placed under the sole
charge  of the  General  government, it was
necessary that bankruptcy should be included.
The subject of patents is placed under the
General  government, though the patent is a
private right, because it was the will of the
convention that the patent should be good in
all the States, as affording more encouragement
to science and the useful arts than if good only
within a single State, or if the power were left
to each State to recognize or not patents granted
by another.  The right created, though private
in its nature, is yet general or common to all
the States in its enjoyment or exercise.
The division of the powers of government
between a General government and particular
269 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
governments, rendered possible and practicable
by the original constitution ofthe people themselves, as one people existing and acting
through State organizations, is the American
method of guarding against the undue centralism to which Roman imperialism inevitably
tends; and it is far simpler and more effective
than any of the European systems of mixed
governments, which seek their end by organizing an antagonism of interests or classes.
The American method demands no such antagonism, no neutralizing of one social force by
another, but avails itself of all the forces of
society, organizes them dialectically, not antagonistically, and thus protects with equal efflciency both public authority and private rights.
The General government can never oppress
the people as individuals, or abridge their private rights or personal freedom and independence, because these are not within its jurisdiction, but are placed in charge, within each
State, of the State government, which, within its
sphere, governs as supremely as the General
government:  the State governments  cannot
weaken the public authority of the nation or
oppress the people in their general rights and
interests, for these are withdrawn from State
jurisdiction, and placed under charge of a Gent
270 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    271
eral government, which, in its sphere, governs
as supremely as the State government. There
is no resort to a system of checks and balances;
there is no restraint on power, and no systematic distrust of power, but simply a division
of powers between two co-ordinate governments, distinct but inseparable, moving in distinct spheres, but in the same direction, or to a
common end. The system is no invention of
man, is no creation of the convention, but is
given us by Providence in the living constitution of the American people.  The merit of the
statesmen of 1787 is that they did not destroy
or deface the work of Providence, but accepted
it, and organized the government in harmony
with the real order, the real elements given
them. They suffered themselves in all their positive substantial work to be governed by reality,
not by theories and speculations. In this they
proved themselves statesmen, and their work
survives; and the republic, laugh as sciolists may,
is, for the present and future, the model republic
-as much so as was Rome in her day; and it is
not simply national pride nor American selfconceit that pronounces its establishment the
beginning of a new and more advanced order
of civilization; such is really the fact.
The only apparently weak point in the sys 
THE AXMERICAN REPL,-BLIC.
tern is ill the particular States themselves. Feu.
dalismi protected the feudal aristocracy effectively for a time against both the king and the
people, but left the king and the people without protection  against  the  aristocracy, and
hence it fell.  It was not adequate to the wants
of civil society, did not harmonize all social elements, and protect  all social and individual
i-ights and interests, and therefore could not
but fail.  The General government takes care of
public authority and rights; the State protects
private rights and personal freedom as against
the General government: but what protects the
citizens in their private rights, their personal
freedom and independence, against the particular
State government? Universal suffrage, answers
the democrat. Armed with the ballot, more
powerful than the sword, each citizen is able to
protect himself. But this is theory, not reality.
If it were true, the division of the powers of
governinent between  two  co-ordinate governments would be of no practical importance.
Experience does not sustain the theory, and the
power of the ballot to protect the individual
may be rendered ineffective by the tyranny of
party.   Experience proves that the ballot is
far less effective in securing the freedom and
independence of the individual citizen than is
272 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITEDI) STALTES.
comrnmonly pretended.  The balot; of an isolated
indtlividual counts for nothling.  The individual,
though Laruled with the ballot, is as powerless,
if l he sta-nds alone, as if he had it not.  To render it of any avail he must associate himself
with a party, and look for his success in the
success of his party; and to secure the success
of his party, he must give up to it his own private convictions and free will.  In practice, individcluals are nothing individually, and parties
are every thin,g.  Even the suppression of the
late rebellion, and the support of the Administrationi in (doilig it?, was made a party question,
and the govei-irnment found the leaders of the
party opposed to the Republican party an obstacle hardly less difficult to surmount than the
chliels of the armies of the so-called Confederate
States.
Parties are formed, one hardly knows how,
and controlled, no one knows by whom;  but
usually by demagogues, men who hlave some
private or personal purposes, for which  they
wish, through party, to use the government.
Parties have no conscience no responsibility,
and their very reason of being is, the usurpation and concentration of power.   The  real
practical tendency of universal suffrage is to:
democratic, instead of an imperial, centralisim
19
273 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
What is to guard against this centralism?  Not
universal suffage, for that tends to create it;
andcl if the government is left to it, the government becomes practically the will of an evershifting and irresponsible majority. Is the
remedy in written or paper constitutions?
Party can break through them, and by making
the judges elective by party, for short terms,
and re-eligible, can do so with impunity. In
several of the States, the dominant majority
have gained the power to govern at will, without any let or hindrance.  Besides, constitutions
can be altered, and have been altered, very
nearly at the will of the majority.  No mere paper constitutions are any protection against the
usurpations of party, for party will always grasp
all the power it can.
Yet the evil is not so great as it seems, for in
most of the States the principle of division of
powers is carried into thle bosom of the State
itself; in some States further than in others,
but in all it obtains to some extent. In what
are called the New England States, the bestgoverned portion of the Union, each town is
a corporation, having important powers and
the charge of all purely local matters-chooses
its own officers, manages its own finances,
takes charge of its own poor, of its own roads
274 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.    275
andl bridges, and of the education of its own
children. Between these corporations and the
State government are the counties, that take
charge of another class of interests, more general than those under the charge of the town,
but less general than those of the State. In the
great central. and Northwestern States the same
system obtains, though less completely carried
out. In the Southern and Southwestern States,
the town corporations hardly exist, and the
rights and interests of the poorer classes of persons have been less well protected in them than
in the Northern and Eastern States. But with
the abolition of slavery, and the lessening of
the influence of the wealthy slaveholding class,
with the return of peace and the revival of
agricultural, industrial, and commercial prosperity, the New England system, in its main
features, is pretty sure to be gradually introduced, or developed, and the division of powers
in the State to be as effectively and as systematically carried out as it is between the General government and the particular or State
governments.   So, though universal suffrage,
good as far as it goes, is not alone sufficient, the
division of powers affords with it a not inadequate protection.
No government, whose workings are intrusted 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
to men, ever is or can be practically perfectsecure all good, and guard against all evil. In
all human governments there will be defects
and abuses, and he is no wise man who expects
perfection from imperfection. But the American constitution, taken as a whole, and in all its
parts, is the least imperfect that has ever existed, and under it individual rights, personal
freedom and independence, as well as public authority or society, are better protected than under any other; and as the few barbaric elements
retained from the feudal ages are eliminated,
the standard of education elevated, and the
whole population Americanized, moulded by
and to the American system, it will be found to
effect all the good, with as little of the evil, as
can be reasonably expected fiom any possible
civil government or political constitution of society.
276 
SECESSION.
CHAPTER XII.
SE ESSIJO.
THE doctrine that a State has a right to secede and carry with it its population and domain, has been effectually put down, and the
unity and integrity of the United States as a
sovereign nation have been effectively asserted
on the battle-field; but the secessionists, though
disposed to submit to superior force, and demean themselves henceforth as loyal citizens,
most likely hold as firmly to the doctrine as
before finding themselves unable to reduce it to
practice, and the Union victory will remain incomplete till they are convinced in their understandings that the Union has the better reason
as well as the superior military resources. The
nation has conquered theirbodies, but it is hardly
less important for our statesmen to conquer
their minds and win their hearts.
The right of secession is not claimed as a
revolutionary right, or even as a conventional
right. The secessionists disclaim revolutionary
. 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
principles, and hold that the right of secession
is anterior to the convention, a right which the
convention could neither give nor take away,
because inherent in the very conception of a
sovereign State. Secession is simply the repeal
by the State of the act of accession to the Union;
and as that act was a free, voluntary act of the
State, she must always be free to repeal it. The
Union is a copartnership; a State in the Union
is simply a member of the firm, and has the
right to withdraw when it judges it for its interest to do so. There is no power in a firm to
compel a copartner to remain a member any
longer than he pleases.  He is undoubtedly
holden for the obligations contracted by the
firm while he remains a member; but for none
contracted after he has withdrawn and given
due notice thereof
So of a sovereign State in the Union. The
UTnion itself, apart from the sovereign States
that compose it, is a mere abstraction, a nullity,
and binds nobody. All its substance and vitality are in the agreement by which the States
constitute themselves a firm or copartnership,
for certain specific purposes, and for which they
open an office and establish an agency under
express instructions for the management of the
general affairs of the firm.  The State is held
278 
SECESSION.
jointly and severally for all the legal obligations of the Union, contracted while she is in
it, but no further; and is free to withdraw when
she pleases, precisely as an individual may
withdrawv  from  an  ordinary business firm.
The remaining copartners have no right of
compulsion or coercion against the seceding
member, for he, saving the obligations already
contracted, is as free to withdraw as they are
to remain.
The population is fixed to the domain, and
goes with it; the domain is attached to the
State, and secedes in the secession of the State.
Secession, then, carries the entire SLate, government, people, and domain, out of the Union,
and restores ipso facto the State to its original
position of a sovereign State, foreign to the United
States.  Beingo an ind ependent sovereign State,
she may enter into a new confederacy, form a
new copartnership, or merge herself in some
other foreign state, as she judges proper or finds
opportunity. The States that seceded formed
among themselves a new confederacy, more to
their mind than the one formed in 1787, as
they had a perfect right to do, and in the war
just ended they were not rebels norrevolutionists, but a people fighting for the right of selfgovernment, loyal citizens and true patriots de
279 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
fending, the independence and inviolability of
their country against foreign invaders.  They
are to be honored for their loyalty and patriotism, and not branded as rebels and punished
as traitors.
This is the secession a,rgument, which rests
on no assumption of revolutionary principles or
abostract rights of mcan, and on no allegation of
real or And iinary wrongs received from the
Union, 1ut simply on the original and inherent
ights of the several States as independent sovereign States.  The argument is conclusive, and
the defence complete, if the Union is only a
firm or eopaltnership, and the sovereignty vests
in the St'ates severally. The refutation of the
secessionists's  in the facts adduced that disprove the theory of State sovereignty, and prove
that the sovereignty vests not in the States
severally, but in the States united, or that the
Union is sovereign, and not the States individually. The Union is not a firm, a copartnership, nor an artificial or conventional union,
but a real, living, constitutional union, founded
in the original and indissoluble unity of the
American people, as  one  sovereign  people.
There is, indeed, no such people, if we abstract,
the States, but there are no States if we abstract
this sovereign people or the Union. There is
280 
SECESSION.
no Union without the States, and there are no
States waithout the Union.  The people are born
States, and the States are born United States.
The Union and the States are simultaneous,
born together, and enter alike into the original
and essential constitution of the American state.
This the facts and reasonings adduced fully es.
tablish.
But this one sovereign people that exists
only as organized into States, does not necessarily include the whole population or territory
included within the jurisdiction of the United
States. It is restricted to the people and territory or domain organized into States in the
Union, as in ancient Rome the ruling people
were restricted to the tenants of the sacred ter.
ritory, vwhlici had been surveyed, and its boundaries marked by the god Terminus, and which
by no means included all the territory held by
the city, and of which she was both the private
proprietor and the public sovereign. The city
had vast possessions acquired by confiscation,
by purchase, by treaty, or by conquest, and in
reference  to  which  her celebrated agrarian
laws were enacted, and which have their counterpart in our homestead and kindred laws.
In this class of territory, of which the city was
the private owner, was the territory of all the
281 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Roman provinces, which was held to be only
leased to its occupants, who were often dispossessed, and their lands given as a recompense
by the consul or imperator to his disbanded
legionaries. The provincials were subjects of
Romlle, but formed no part of the Roman people, and had no share in the political power of
the state, till at alate period the privileges of Roman citizens were extended to them, and the
Roman people became coextensive with the Ro
man empire.   So the United States have held
and still hold large territorial possessions, ac
quired by the acknowledgment of their independence by Great Britain, the former sovereign, the cession of particular states, and purchase from France, Spain, and Mexico.   Till
erected into States and admitted into the Union,
this territory, with its population, though subject to the United States, makes no part of
the political or sovereign territory and people
of the United States.  It is undezr the Union,
not in it, as is indicated by the phrase admitting into the Union  a legal phrase, since the
constitution ordains that "new States may be
admitted by the Congress into this Union."
There can be no secession that separates a
State from the national domain, and withdraws
it from the territorial sovereignty or jurisdic
282 
SECESSION.
tion of the United States; yet what hinders a
State from going out of the Union in the sense
that it comes into it, and thus ceasing to belong
to the political people of the United States?
If the view of the constitution taken in the
preceding chapters be correct, and certainly no
facts tend to disprove it, the accession of a Territory as a State in the Union is a free act of the
territorial people. The Territory cannot organize and apply for admission as a State, without
what is called an "enabling act" of Congress
or its equivalent; but that act is permissive, not
mandatory, and nothing obliges the Territory
to organize under it and apply for admission.
It may do so or not, as it chooses. What,
then, hinders thie State once in the Union firomn
going out or returning to its former condition
of territory subject to the Union? The original States did not need to come in under an
enabling act, for they were born States in the
Union, and were never territory outside of the
Union and subject to it. But they and the
new States, adopted or naturalized States, once
in the Union, stand on a footing of perfect
equality, and the original States are no more
and no less bound than they to remain
States  in the Union.   The  ratification of
the constitution by the original States was a
283 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
free act, as much so as the accession of a new
State formed from territory subject to the
Union is a free act, and a free act is an act
which one is free to do or not to do, as lhe
pleases. What a State is free to do or not to
do, it is free to undo, if it chlooses.  There is
nothing ill either the State constitution or in
that of the United States that forbids it.
This is denied. The population and domain
are inseparable in the State; and if the State
could take itself out of the Union, it would take
them out, and be ~pyo facto a sovereign State
foreign to the Union. It would take the domain and the population out of the Union, it is
conceded and even maintained, but not therefore woulcd it take them out of the jurisdiction
of the Union, or would they exist as a State
foreign to the Union; for population and territory may coexist, as Dacota, Colorado, or New
AIexico, out of the Union, and yet be subject
to the Union, or within the jurisdiction of the
United States.
But the Union is formed by the surrender
by each of the States of its individual sovereignty, and each State by its admission into
the Union surrenders its individual sovereignty, or binds itself by a constitutional compact
to merge its individual sovereignty in that of
284 
SECESSION.
the whole. It then cannot cease to be a State
in the Union without breach of contract. Ilaving surrendered its sovereignty to the Union,
or bound itself by the constitution to exercise
its original sovereignty only as one of the United States, it can unmake itself of its state
character, only by consent of the United States,
or by a successful revolution. It is by virtue
of this fact that secession is rebellion against
the United States, and that the General governmenlt, as representing the Union, has the right
and the duty to suppress it by all the forces at
its command.
There can be no rebellion where there is no
allegiance.   The States in the Union cannot
owNe allegiance to the Union, for they are it, and
for any one to go out of it is no more an act of
rebellion than it is for a king to abdicate his
throne. The Union is not formed by the surrender to it by the several States of their
respective individual sovereignty.  Such  surrender could, as we have seen, form only an
alliance, or a confederation, not one sovereign
people; and from an alliance, or confederation,
the ally or confederate has, saving its faith, the
inherent right to secede. The argument assumes that the States were originally each in its
individuality a sovereign state, but by the con
285 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
vention which framed the constitution, each
surrendered its sovereignty to the whole, and
thus several sovereign states became one sovereign political people, governing in general
matters through the General government, and
in particular matters through particular or
State governments. This is Mr. Madison's theory, and also Ar. Webster's; but it has been
refuted in the refutation of the theory that
makes government originate in compact. A
sovereign state can, undoubtedly, surrender its
sovereignty, but can surrender it only to something or somebody that really exists; for to
surrender to no one or to nothing is, as has been
shown, the same thing as not to surrender at
alli and the Union, being formed only by the
surrender, is nothing prior to it, or till after it
is made, and therefore can be no recipient of
the surrender.
Besides, the theory is the reverse of the fact.
T-ie State does not surrender or part with its
qovereignty by comiing into the Union, but
acquires by it all the rights it holds as a State.
Between the original States and the new
States there is a difference of mode by which
they become States in the Union, but none in
their powers, or the tenure by which they hold
them. The process by which new States are
286 
SECESSION.
actually formed and admitted into the Union,
discloses at once what it is that is gained or
lost by admission. The domain and population, before the organization of the Territory
into one of the United States, are subject to the
United States, inseparably attached to the domain of the Union, and under its sovereignty.
Thie Territory so remains, organized or unorganized, under a Territorial government  created by Conglress.  Congress, by an enabling
act, perm-its it to organize as a State, to call a
convention to form a State constitution, to elect
under it, in such way as the convention ordains,
State officers, a State legislature, and, in the way
prescribed by the Constitution of the United
States, senators and representatives in Congress. Here is a complete organization as a
State, yet, though called a State, it is no State
at all, and is simply territory, without a single
particle of political power. To be a State it
must be recognized and admitted by Congress
as a State in the Union, and when so recognized and admitted it possesses, in union with
the other United States, supreme political sovereignty, jointly in all general matters, and
individually in all private and particular matters.
The Territory gives up no sovereign powers
287 
THE AMAERICAN REPUBLIC.
by coming into the Union, for b-efore it came
into the Union it had no sovereignty, no political rights at all.  All the rights and powers it
holds are held by the simple fact that it has
become a State in the Union. This is as true of
the original States as of the new States; for it
has been shown in the chapter on The Unitedl
IS-ate,, that the original British sovereignty under which the colonies were organized and existed passed, oni the fact of independence, to the
States united, and not to the States severally.
Hence if nine States had ratified the constitution, anl the other four had stood out, and refused to do it, which was within their competency, they would not have been independent
sovereign States, outside of the Union, but Territories under the Union.
Texas forms the only exception to the rule
that the States have never been independent
of the Union.  All the other new States have
been formed from territory sub)ject to the
Union. This is true of all the States formed
out of the Territory of the Northwest, and out
of the domain ceded by France, Spain, and
Mexico to the United States. All these cessions were held by the United States as teritory immediately subject to the Union, before
being erected into States; and by far the larger
288 
SECESSION.
part is so held even yet. But Texas was an
independent foreign state, and was annexed as
a State without having been first subjected as
territory to the United States. It of course
lost by annexation its separate sovereignty.
But this annexation was held by many to be
unconstitutional; it was made when the State
sovereignty theory had gained possession of the
Government, and was annexed as a State instead of being admitted as a State formed from
territory belonging to the United States, for the
very purpose of committing the nation to that
theory. Its annexation was the prologue, as the
Mexican war was the first act in the secession
drama, and as the epilogue is the suppression
of the rebellion on Texan soil.  Texas is an
exceptional case, and forms no precedent, and
cannot be adduced as invalidating the general
rule. Omitting Texas, the simple fact is, the
States acquire all their sovereign powers by
being States in the Union, instead of losing or
surrendering them.
Our American statesmen have overlooked or
not duly weighed the facts in the case, because,
holding the origin of government in compact, they
felt no need of looking back of the constitution
to find the basis of that unity of the American
people which they assert. Neither Mr. Madi       19
89 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
son nor Mr. Webster felt any difficulty in
asserting it as created by the convention of
1787, or in conceding the sovereignty of the
States prior to the Union, and denying  its
existence after the ratification of the constitution.  If it were not that they held that the
State originates in convention or the social compact, there would be unpardonable presumption
on the part of the present writer in venturing
to hazard an assertion contrary to theirs. But,
if their theo: y was unsound, their practical doctrine was not; for they maintained that the
American people are one sovereign people, and
Mr. Quincy Adams, an authority inferior to
neither, maintained that they were always one
people, and that the States hold from the
Union, not the Union from the States. The
States without the Union cease to exist as political communities: the Union without the States
ceases to be a Union, and becomes a vast centralized and consolidated state, ready to lapse
from a civilized into a barbaric, from a republi.
can to a despotic nation.
The State, under the American system, as
distinguished from Territory, is not in the
domain and population fixed to it, nor yet in
-its exterior organization, but solely in the political powers, rights, and franchises which it
2'/o' J 
SECESSION.
holds from the United States, or as one of the
United States. As these are rights, not obligations, the State may resign or abdicate them
and  cease to be a State, on the same principle
that any man may abdicate or forego his rights.
In doing so, the State breaks no oath of allegiance, fails to fulfil no obligation she contracted as a State: she simply forgoes her
political rights and franchises. So far, then,
secession is possible, feasible, and not unconstitio-n,l or unlawful.  But it is, as Mr. Sumner
and others have maintained, simply State suicide.  Nothing hinders a State from committing suicide, if she chooses, any more than there
was something which compelled the Territory
to become a State in the Union against its will.
It is objected to this conclusion that the
States were, prior ton the Union, independent
sovereign States, and secession would not destroy the State, but restore it to its original sovereignty and independence, as the secessionists maintain. Certainly, if the States were,
prior to the Union, sovereign States; but this
is precisely what has been denied and disproved; for prior to the Union there were no
States.  Secession restores, or reduces, rather,
the State to the condition it was in before its
admission into the Union; but that condition
291 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
is that of Territory, or a Territory subject to
the United States, and not that of an independent sovereign state. The State holds all its
political rights and powers in the Union from
the Union, and has none out of it, or in the condition in which its population and domain were
before being a State in the Union.
State suicide, it has been urged, releases its
population and territory firom their allegiance
to the Union, and as there is no rebellion where
there is no allegiance, resistance by its population and territory to the Union, even war
against the Union, would not be rebellion, but
the simple assertion of popular sovereignty.
This is only the same objection in another form.
The lapse of the State releases the population
and territory from no allegiance to the Union;
for their allegiance to the Union was not contracted by their becoming a State, and they
have never in their State character owed allegiance to the United States. A State owes no
allegiance to the United States, for it is one of
them, and is jointly sovereign. The relation
between the United States and the State is
not the relation of suzerain and liegemnan or
vassal. A State owes no allegiance, for it is not
subject to the Union; it is never in their State
capacity that its population and territory do or
292 
SECESSION.
can rebel. Hence, the Government has steadily
denied that, in the late rebellion, any State as
such rebelled.
But as a State cannot rebel, no State can go
out of the Union; and therefore no State in the
late rebellion has seceded, and the States that
passed secession ordinances are and all along
have been States in the Union. No State can
rebel, but it does not follow therefrom that no
State can secede or cease to exist as a State: it
only follows that secession, in the sense of State
suicide, or the abdication by the State of its
political rights and powers, is not rebellion.
Nor does it follow from the fact that no State
has rebelled, that no State has ceased to be a
State; or that the States that passed secession
ordinances have been all along States in the
Union.
The secession ordinances were illegal, unconstitutional, not within the competency of the
State, and therefore null and void from the be-.
ginning.   Unconstitutional,  illegal, and  not
within the competency of the State, so far as
intended to alienate any portion of the national
domain and population thereto annexed, they
certainly were, and so far were void and of no
effect; but so far as intended to take the State
simply as a State out of the Union, they were
293 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
within the competency of the State, wore  not
illegal or unconstitutional, and therefore not
null and void. Acts unconstitutional in some
parts and constitutional in others are not
wholly void. The unconstitutionality vitiates
only the unconstitutional parts; the others are
valid, are law, and recognized and enforced as
such by the courts.
The secession ordinances are void, because
they were never passed by the people of the
State, but by a faction that overawed them
and usurped the authority of the State. This
argument implies that, if a secession ordinance
is passed by the people proper of the State, it
is valid; which is more than they who urge it
against the State suicide doctrine are prepared
to concede. But the secession ordinances were
in every instance passed by the people of the
State in convention legally assembled, therefore by them in their highest State capacityin the same capacity in which they ordain and
ratify the State constitution itself; and in nearly
all the States they were in addition ratified and
confirmed, if the facts have been correctly reported, by a genuine plebiscitum, or direct vote
of the people. In all cases they were adopted
by a decided majority of the political people
of the State, and after their adoption they were
294 
SECESSION.
acquiesced in and indeed actively supported by
very nearly the whole people. The people of
the States adopting the secession ordinances
were far more unanimous in supporting secession than the people of the other States were
in sustaining the Government in its efforts to
suppress the rebellion by coercive measures. It
will not do, then, to ascribe the secession ordinances to a faction. The people are never a
faction, nor is a faction ever the majority.
There has been a disposition at the North,
encouraged by the few Union men at the South,
to regard secession as the work of a few ambitious and unprincipled leaders, who, by their
threats, their violence, and their overbearing
manner, forced the mass of the people of their
respective States into secession, against their
convictions and their will.   No  doubt there
were leaders at the South, as there are in
every great movement at the North; no doubt
there were individuals in the seceding States
that held secession wrong in principle, and
were conscientiously attached to the Union;
no doubt, also, there were men who adhered to
the Union, not because they disapproved secession, but because they disliked the men at the
head of the movement, or because they were
keen-sighted enough to see that it could not
295 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
succeed, that the Union  must be the winning
side, and that by adhering to it they would
become the great and leading men of their respective States, which they certainly could not
be under secession. Others sympathized fully
with what was called the Southern cause, held
firmly the right of secession, and  hated cordially the Yankees, but doubted either the
practicability or the expediency of secession,
and opposed it till resolved on, but, after it was
resolved on, yielded to none in their earnest
support of it. These last comprised the immense majority of those who  voted against
secession. Never could those called the Southern leaders have carried the secession ordinances, never could they have carried on the
war with the vigor and determination, and with
such formidable armies as they collected and
armed for four years, making at'times the destiny of the Union wellnigh doubtful, if they
had not had the Southern heart with them,
if they had not been most heartily supported
by the overwhelming mass of the people. They
led a popular, not a factious movement.
No State, it is said again, has seceded, or
could secede. The State is territorial, not per.
sonal, and as no State can carry its territory
and population out of the Union, no State can
296 
SECESSION.
secede. Out of the jurisdiction of the Union, or
alienate them from the sovereign or national domain, very true; but out of the Union as a State,
with rights, powers, or franchises in the Union,
not true. Secession is political, not territorial.
But the State holds from the territory or domain. The people are sovereign because attached to a sovereign territory, not the domain
because held by a sovereign people, as was
established by the analysis of the early Roman
constitution. The territory of the States corresponds to the sacred territory of Rome, to
which was attached the Roman sovereignty.
That territory, once surveyed and consecrated,
remained sacred and the ruling territory, and
could not be divested of its sacred and governing character. The portions of the territory
of the United States once erected into States
and consecrated as ruling territory can never
be deprived, except by foreign conquest or successful revolution, of its sacred character and
inviolable rights.
* The State is territorial, not personal, and is
constituted byput[ic, not by vrivate wealth, and
is always  Ie6.Vublica or commonwealth, in distinction from  despotism or monarchy in its
oriental sense, which is founded on private
wealth, or which assumes that the authority to
297 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
govern, or sovereignty, is the private estate of
the sovereign. All power is a domain, but
there is no domain without a dominus or lord.
In oriental monarchies the domnlinus is the mon.
arch; in republics it is the public or people
fixed to the soil or territory, that is, the people
in their territorial, and not in their personal or
genealogical relation.  The people of the United States are sovereign only within the territory or domain of the United States, and their
sovereignty is a state, because fixed, attached,
or limited to that specific territory. It is fixed
to the soil, not nomadic. In barbaric nations
power is nomadic and personal, or genealogical,
confined to no locality, but attaches to the chief,
and follows wherever he goes. The Gothic
chiefs hold their power by a personal title, and
have the same authority in their tribes on the
Po or the Rhone as on the banks of the Elbe
or the Danube.  Power migrates with the chief
and his people, and may be exercised whereever he qnd they find themselves, as a Swedish
queen held when she ordered the execution
of one of her subjects at Paris, without asking
permission of the territorial lord.   In these
nations, power is a personal right, or a private
estate, not a state which exists only as attached
to the dolmain, and, as attached to the domain,
298 
SECESSION.
exists independently of the chief or the government. The distinction is between public domain and private domain.
The American system is republican, and, contrary to what some democratic politicians assert,
the American democracy is territorial, not personal; not territorial because the majority of
the people are agriculturists or landholders,
but because all political rights, powers, or franchises are territorial. The sovereign people of
the United States are sovereign only within the
territory of the United States. The great body
of the freemen have the elective franchise, but
no one has it save in his State, his county, his
town, his ward, his precinct.  Out of the election district in which he is domiciled, a citizen
of the United States has no more right to vote
than has the citizen or subject of a foreign
state. This explains what is meant by the
attachment of power to the territory, and the
dependence of the state on the domain. The
state, in republican states, exists only as inseparably united with the public domain; under feudalism, power was joined to territory or
domain, but the domain was held as a private,
not as a public domain. All sovereignty rests
on domain or proprietorship, and is dominion.
The proprietor is the dominus or lord, and in
299 
THE  AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
republican states the lord is society, or the
public, and the domain is held for the common
or public good of all. All political rights are
held from society, or the dominus, and therefore it is the elective franchise is held from society, and is a civil right, as distinguished from
a natural, or even a purely personal right.
As there is no domain without a lord or
dominus, territory alone cannot possess any political rights or franchises, for it is not a domain.
In the American system, the dominus or lord
is not the particular State, but the United
States, and the domain of the whole territory,
whether erected into particular States or not,
is in the United States alone. The United
States do not part with the dominion of that
portion of the national domain included within
a particular State. The State holds the domain
not separately but jointly, as inseparably one
of the United States: separated, it has no dominlion, is no State, and is no longer a joint
sovereign at all, and the territory that it included falls into the condition of any other territory held by the United States not erected
into one of the Unitedcl States.
Lawyers, indeed, tell us that the eminent domain is in the particular State, and that all escheats are to the State, not to the United
300 
SECESSION.
States. All escheats of private estates, but no
public or general escheats. But this has nothing
to do with the public donlain. The United
States are the domninus, but they have, by the
constitution, divided  the powers of government beween a General government and particular State governments, and ordained that all
matters of a general nature, common to all the
States, should be placed under the supreme
control of the former, and all matters of a private or particular character under the supreme
control of the latter. The eminent domain of
private estates is in the particular State,
but the sovereign authority in the particular
State is that of the United States expressing
itself through  the State government.   The
"United States, in the States as well as out
of them, is the dominus, as the States respectively would soon find if they were to undertake
to alienate any part of their domain to a foreign
power, or even to the citizens or sub)jects of a
foreign State, as is also evident from the fact
that the United States, in the way prescribed
by the constitution, may enlarge or contract at
will the rights and powers of the States. The
mistake on this point grows out of the habit
of restricting the action of the United States to
the General government, and not recollecting
301 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
that the United States govern one class of subjects through the General government and another class through State governments, but that
it is one and the same authority that governs
in both.
The analogy borrowed from the Roman constitution, as far as applicable, proves the reverse
of what is intended. The dominus of the sacred
territory was the city, or the Roman state, not the
sacred territory itself. The territory received
the tenant, and gave him as tenant the right to
a seat in the senate; but the right of the territory was derived not from the domain, but from
the dominus, that is, the city.  But the city
could revoke its grant, as it practically did when
it conferred the privileges of Roman citizenship
on the provincials, and gave to plebeians seats
in the senate.   Moreover, nothing in Roman
history indicates that to the validity of a senatus consultum it was necessary to count the
vacant domains of the sacred territory. The
particular domain must, under the American
system, be counted when it is held by a State,
but of itself alone, or even with its population,
it is not a State, and therefore as a State domain
is vacant and without any political rights or
powers whatever.
To argue that the territory and population
302 
SECESSION.
once a State in the Union must needs always
be so, would be well enough if a State in the
Union were individually a sovereign state; for
territory, with its population not subject to another, is always a sovereign state, even though
its government has been subverted. But this
is not the fact, for territory with its population
does not constitute a State in the Union; and,
therefore, when of a State nothing remains but
territory and population, the State has evidently disappeared. It will not do then to maintain that State suicide is impossible, and that
the States that adopted secession ordinances
have never for a moment ceased to be States in
the Union, and are free, whenever they choose,
to send their representatives and senators to
occupy their vacant seats in Congress. They
must be reorganized first.
There would also be some embarrassment to
the government in holding that the States that
passed the secession ordinance remain, notwithstanding, States in the Union. The citizens of
a State in the Union cannot be rebels to the
United States, unless they are rebels to their
State; and rebels to their State they are not,
unless they resist its authority and make war
on it. The authority of the State in the Union
is a legal authority, and the citizen in obeying
303 
THE AMEDRICAN REPUBLIC.
it is disloyal neither to the State nor to the
Union. The citizens in the States that made
war on the United States did not resist their
State, for they acted by its authority. The
only men, on this supposition, in them, who
have been traitors or rebels, are precisely the
Union men who have refused to go with their
respective States, and have resisted, even with
armed  force, the secession ordinances.   The
several State governments, under which the socalled rebels carried on the war for the destruction of the Union, if the States are in the
Union, were legal and loyal governments of
their respective States, for they were legally
elected and installed, and conformed to their
respective State constitutions. All the acts of
these governments have been constitutional.
Their entering into a confederacy for attaining
a separate nationality has been legal, and the
debts contracted by the States individually, or
by the confederacy legally formed by them,
have been legally contracted, stand good against
them, and perhaps against the United States.
The war against them has been all wrong, and
the confederates killed in battle have been
murdered by the United States. The blockade
has been illegal, for no nation can blockade its
own ports, and the captures and seizures under
304 
SECESSION.
it, robberies. The Supreme Court has been
wrong in declaring the war a territorial civil
war, as well as the government in acting accordingly.   Now, all these  conclusions  are
manifestly false and absurd, and therefore the
assumption that the States in question have
all along been States in the Union cannot be
sustained.
It is easy to understand the resistance the
Government offers to the doctrine that a State
may commit suicide, or by its own act abdicate
its rights and cease to be a State in the Union.
It is admissible on no theory of the constitution that has been widely entertained. It is
not admissible on Mr. Calhoun's theory of State
sovereignty, for on that theory a State in going
out of the Union does not cease to be a State,
but simnply resumes the powers it had delegated to the General government.  It cannot
be maintained on Mr. Madison's or Mr. Webster's theory, that the States prior to the Union
were severally sovereign, but by the Union were
constituted one people; for, if this one people are
understood to be a federal people, State secession would not be State suicide, but State independence; and if understood to be one consolidated or centralized people, it would be simply
insurrection or rebellion against the national
20
305 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
authority, laboring to malke itself a revolution
Tlie government seems to have understood Mr.
Madvison's theory in both senses-in the consolidated sense, in declaring the secessionists insurgentLs and rebe]s, and in the federal sense, in
maintaining that they have never seceded, and
are still States in the Union, in full possession
of all their political or State rights.  Perhaps,
if the government, instead of borrowing from
contradictory theories of the constitution which
hleave gained currency, had examined in the
light of historical facts the constitution itself,
it would have been as constitutional in its doctrine as it has been loyal and patriotic, energetic and successful in its military administration.
Another reason why the doctrine that State
secession is State suicide has appeared so offensive to many, is the supposition entertained at
one time by some of its fiiends, that the dissolution of the State vacates all rights and franchises held under it. But this is a mistake.
The principle is well known and recognized by
the jurisprudence of all civilized nations, that
in the transfer of a territory from one territorial sovereign to another, the laws in force
under the old sovereign remain in force after
the change, till abrogated, or others are enacted
.!
306 
SECESSION.
in their place by the new sovereign, except
such as are necessarily abrogated by the change
itself of the sovereign; not, indeed, because the
old sovereign retains any authority, but because
such is presumed by the courts to be the will
of the new sovereign. The principle applies
in the case of the death of a State in the Union.
The laws of the State are tenrritorial, till abrogated by competent authority, remain the lex
looi, and are in full force. All that would be vacated would be the public rights of the State,
and in no case the private rights of citizens,
corporations, or laws affecting them.
But the same conclusion is reached in another way. In the lapse of a State or its return to the condition of a Territory, there is
really no change of sovereignty. The sovereignty, both before and after, is the United
States. The sovereign authority that governs
in the State government, as we have seen,
though independent of the General government, is the United States. The United States
govern certain'matters through a General gov.
ernment, and others through particular State
governments. The private rights and interests
created, regulated, or protected by the particular State, are created, regulated, or protected by
the United States, as much and as plenarily as
307 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
if done by the General government, and the
State laws creating, regulating, or protecting
them can b)e abrogated by no  power known
to the constitution, but either the State itself,
or the United States in convention legally
assembled. If this were what is meant by the
States that have seceded, or professed to secede,
remaining States in the Union, they would, indeed, be States still in the Union, notwithstanding secession, and the government would be
right in saying that no State can secede. But
this is not what is meant, at least not all that
is meant. It is meant not only that the private rights of citizens and corporations remain,
but the citizens retain all the public rights of
the State, that is, the right to representation in
Congress and in the electoral college, and the
right to sit in the convention, whiclh is not true.
But the correction of the misapprehension
that the private rights and interests are lost by
the lapse of the State may remove the graver
prejudices against the doctrine of State suicide,
and dispose loyal and honest Union men to
hear the reasons by which it is supported, and
which nobody has refuted or can refute on
constitutional grounds. A Territory by coming into the Union becomes a State; a State
by going out of the Union becomes a Territory. 
RECONSTRUCTION.
CHAPTER XIII.
BECONSTR UCTION.
THE question of reconstructing the States
that seceded will be practically settled before
these pages can see the light, and will therefore
be considered here only so far as necessary to
complete the view of the constitution of the
United States. The manner in which the government proposed to settle, has settled, or will
settle the question, proves that both it and the
American people have only confused views of
the rights and powers of the General governmnent, but imperfectly comprehend the distinction between the legislative and executive de.
partments of that government, and are far more
familiar with party tactics than with constitutional law.
It would be difficult to imagine any thing
more unconstitutional, more crude, or more
glaringly impolitic than the mode of reconstruction indicated by the various executive
proclamations that have been issued, bearing on
the subject, or even by the bill for guaranteeing
the States republican governments, that passed
309 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Congress, but which failed to obtain the Presi.
dent's signature. It is, in some measure, char.
acteristic of the American government to un
derstand how things ought to be done only
when they are done and it is too late to do
them in the right way. Its wisdom comes after
action, as if engaged in a series of experiments.
But, happily for the nation, few blunders are
committed that with our young life and elasticity are irreparable, and that, after all, are
greater than are ordinarily committed by older
and more experienced nations. They are not of
the most fatal character, and are, for the most
part, such as are incident to the conceit, the heedlessness, the ardor, and the impatience of youth,
and need excite no serious alarm for the future.
There has been no little confusion in the
public mind, and in that of the government
itself, as to what reconstruction is, who has the
power to reconstruct, and how that power is to
be exercised.   Are the States that seceded
States in the Union, with no other disability
than that of having no legal governments? or are
they Territories subject to the Union? Is their
reconstruction their erection into new States,
or their restoration as States previously in the
Union? Is the power to reconstruct in the States
themselves? or is it in the General government?
310 
RECONSTRUCTION.
If partly in the people and partly in the General government, is the part in the General
government in Congress, or in the Executive?
If in Congress can the Executive, without the
authority of Congress, proceed to reconstruct,
simply leaving it for Congress to accept or
reject the reconstructed State?  If the power
is partly in the people of the disorganized
States, who or what defines that people, decides
who may or may not vote in the reorganization? On all these questions there has been
much crude, if not erroneous, thinking, and
much inconsistent and contradictory action.
The government started with the theory
that no State had seceded or could secede, and
held that, throughout, the States in rebellion
continued to be States in the Union.  That is,
it held secession to be a purely personal and
not a territorial insurrection. Yet it proclaimed
eleven States to be in insurrection against the
United States, blockaded their ports, and interdicted all trade and intercourse of any kind
with them. The Supreme Court, in order to
sustain the blockade and interdict as legal,
decided the war to be not a war against simply
individual or personal insurgents, but "a territorial civil war."  This negatived the assump.
tion that the States that took up arms against
311 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the United States remained all the while peaceable and loyal States, with all their political
rights,and powers in the Union.  The States in
the Union are integral elements of the political
sovereignty, for the sovereignty of the American
nation vests in the States united; and it is
a?osurd to pretend that the eleven States that
made the rebellion and were carrying on a formidable war against the United States, were in
the Union, an integral element of that sovereign
authority which was carrying on a yet more
formidable war against them.   Nevertheless,
the government still held to its first assumnption, that the States in rebellion continued to
be States in the Union-loyal States, with all
their rights and franchises unimpaired!
That the government should at first have
favored or acquiesced in the doctrine that no
State had ceased to be a State in the Union, is
not to be wondered at. The extent and determination of the secession movement were imperfectly understood, and the belief among the
supporters of the government, and, perhaps, of
the government itself, was, that it was a spasmodic movement for a temporary purpose,
rather than a fixed determination to found an
independent separate nationality; that it was
and would be sustained by the real majority
312 
RECONSTRUCTION.
of the people of none of the States, with perhaps the exception of South Carolina; that the
true policy of the government would be to
treat the seceders with great forbearance, to
avoid all measures likely to exasperate them
or to embarrass their loyal fellow-citizens, to
act simply on the defensive, and to leave the
Union men in the several seceding States to
gain a political victory at the polls over the
secessionists, and to return their States to their
normal position in the Union.
The government may not have had much
faith in this policy, and Mr. Lincoln's personal
authority might be cited to the effect that it
had not, but it was urged strongly by the
Union men of the Border States.  The administration was hardly seated in office, and its
members were new men, without administrative experience; the President, who had been
legally elected indeed, but without a majority
of the popular votes, was far from having the
full confidence even of the party that elected
him; opinions were divided; party spirit ran
high; the excitement was great, the crisis was
imminent, the government found itself left by
its predecessor without an army or a navy, and
almnost without arms or ordnance; it knew not
how far it could count on popular support, and
I
<1-1113
-o -L, 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
was hardly aware whom it could trust or should
distrust; all was hurry and confusion;  and
what could the government do but to gain
time, keep off active war as long as possible, conciliate all it could, and take ground
which at the time seemed likely to rally the
largest number of the people to its support?
There were men then, warm friends of the administration, and still warmer friiends of their
country, who believed that a bolder, a less
timid, a less cautious policy would have been
wiser; that in revolutionary times boldness, what
in other times would be rashness, is the highest
prudence, on the side of the government as
well as on the side of the revolution; that
when once it has shown itself, the rebellion
that hesitates, deliberates, consults, is defeatedand so is the government. The seceders owed
from the first their successes not to their superior organization, to their better preparation,
or to the better discipline and appointment of
their armies, but to their very rashness, to their
audacity even, and the hesitancy, caution, and
deliberation of the government. Napoleon
owed his successes as general and civilian far
more to the air of power he assumed, and the
conviction he produced of his invincibility in
the minds of his opponents, than to his civil or
314 
RECONSTRUCTION.
military strategy and tactics, admirable as they
both were.
But the government believed it wisest to
adopt a conciliatory, and, in many respects, a
temporizing policy, and to rely more on weakening the secessionists in their respective States
than on strengthening the hands and hearts of its
own stanch and uncompromising supporters. It
must strengthen the Union party in the insurrectionary States, and as this party hoped to
succeed by political manipulation rather than
by military force, the governmont must rely
rather on a show of military power than on
gaining any decisive battle. As it hoped, or
affected to hope, to suppress the rebellion in
the States that seceded through their loyal citizens, it was obliged to assume that secession
was the work of a faction, of a few ambitious
and disappointed politicians, and that the States
were all in the Union, and continued in the loyal
portion of their inhabitants. Hence its aid to
the loyal Virginians to organize as the State
of Virginia, and its subsequent efforts to organize the Union men in Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Tennessee, and its disposition to recognize their
organization in each of those States as the State
itself, though including only a small minority
of the territorial peoples Had the facts been
315 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
as assumed, the government might have treated
the loyal people of each State as the State itself, without any gross usurpation of power;
but, unhappily, the facts assumed were not facts,
and it was soon found that the Union party in
all the States that seceded, except the western
part of Virginia and the eastern section of Tennessee, after secession had been carried by the
popular vote, went almost unanimously with
the secessionists; for they as well as the secessionists held the doctrine of State sovereignty;
and to treat the handful of citizens that remained loyal in each State as the State itself,
became ridiculous, and the government should
have seen and acknowledged it.
The rebellion being really territorial, and not
personal, the State that seceded was no more
continued in the loyal than ill the disloyal poulation.  While the war lasted, both were public enemies of th: Uni-teii;t;ac., and neither
had or could have any rights as a State in the
Union. The law recognizes a solidarity of all
the citizens of a State, and assumes that, when
a State is at war, all its citizens are at war,
whether approving the war or not. The loyal
people in the States that seceded incurred none
of the pains and penalties of treason, but they
retained none of the political rights of the
316
'e 
RECONSTRUCTION.
State in the Union, and, in reorganizing the
State after the suppression of the rebellion, they
have no mlore right to take part thlan the secessionists themselves. They, as well as the
secessionists, have followed the territory.  It
was on this point that the government committed its gravest mistake.   As  to the reorganization or reconstruction of the State, the
whole territorial people stood on the same
footing.
Taking the decision of the Supremine Court
as conclusive on the subject, the rebellion was
territorial, and, therefore, placed all the States
as States out of the Union, and retained them
only as population and territory under or subject to the Union.  The States ceasedl to exist,
that is, as integral elements of the national sovereignty.  The question then occurred, are they
to be erected into new States, or are they to be
reconstructed and restored to the Union as the
identical old States that seceded? Shall their
identity be revived and preserved, or shall they
be new States, regardless of that identity?
There can be no question that the work to be
done was that of restoration, not of creation; no
tribe should perish from Israe], no star be
struck from the firmament of the Union. Every
inhabitant of the fallen States, and every citi
317 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
zen of the United States must desire them to
be revived and continued with their old names
and boundaries, and all true Americans wish
to continue the constitution as it is, and the
Unionl as it was.  Who would see old Virginia,
the Virginia of revolutionary fame, of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, of Monroe, the "Old
Dominion,"  once  the leading State of  the
Union, dead without hope of resurrection? or
South Carolina, the land of Rutledge, Moultrie, Laurens, Hiayne, Sumter, and Marion?
There is something grating to him who values
State associations, and would encourage State
emulation and State pride, in the mutilation of
the Old Dominion, and the erection within her
borders of the new State called West Virginia.
States in the Union are not mere prefectures, or
mere dependencies on the General govermnent,
created  for the  convenience of administration. They have an individual, a real existence of their own, as much so as have the individual members of society. They are free
members, not of a confederation indeed, but of
a higher political community, and reconstruction should restore the identity of their individual life, suspended for a moment by secession,
but capable of resuscitation.
These States had become, indeed, for a mo
318 
RECONSTRUCTION.
ment, territory under the  Union;  but in no
instance had they or could they become territory that had never existed as States.   The
fact that the territory and people had existed
as a State, could with regard to none of them
be obliterated, and, therefore, they could not
be erected into absolutely new States. The
process of reconstructing them could not be the
same as that of creating new States. In creating a new State, Congress, ex necesitate, because there is no other power except the national convention competent to do it, defines the
boundaries of the new State, and prescribes the
electoral people, or who may take part in the preliminary organization; but in reconstructing
States it does neither, for both are done by a law
Congress is not competent to abrogate or modify,
and which can be done only by the United
States in convention assembled, or by the State
itself after its restoration.   The government
has conceded this, and, in part, has acted on it.
It preserves, except in Virginia, the old boundaries, and recognizes, or rather professes to
recognize the old electoral law, only it claims
the right to exclude from the electoral people
those who have voluntarily taken part in the
rebellion.
The work to be done in States that have se
319 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ceded is that of reconstruction, not creation;
and this work is not and cannot be done exclusively nor chiefly by the General government,
either by the Executive or by Congress. That
government can appoint military, or even provisional governors, who may designate the time
and place of holding the convention of the electoral people of the disorganized State, as also the
time and place of holding the elections of delegates to it, and superintend the elections so far
as to see the polls are opened, and that none
but qualified electors vote, but nothing more.
All the rest is the work of the territorial electoral people themselves, for the State within its
own sphere must, as one of the United States,
be a self-governing community. The General
government may concede or withhold permission to the disorganized State to reorganize, as
it judges advisable, but it cannot itself reorganize it. If it concedes the permission, it must
leave the whole electoral people under the
pre-existing electoral law free to take part in
the work of reorganization, and to vote according to their own judgment. It has no authority to purge the electoral people, and say
who may or may not vote, for the whole ques tion of suffrage and the qualifications of electors
is left to the State, and can be settled neither
320 
RECONSTRUCTION.
by an act of Congress nor by an Executive
proclamation.
If the government theory were admissible.
that the disorganized States remain States in
the Union, the General government could have
nothing to say on the subject, and could no
more interfere with elections in any one of them
than it could with elections in Massachusetts or
New York. But even on the doctrine here defended it can interfere with them only by way
of general superintendence. The citizens have,
indeed, lost their political rights, but not their
private rights. Secession has not dissolved
civil society, or abrogated any of the laws of
the disorganized State that were in force at the
time of secession. The error of the government
is not in maintaining that these laws survive
the secession ordinances, and remain the territorial law, or ezx loci, but in maintaining that they
do so by will of the State, that has, as a State,
really lapsed.  They do so by will of the United States, which enacted them throLgh the individual State, and which has not in convention abrogated them, save the law authorizing
slavery, and its dependent laws.
This point has already been made, but as it
is one of the niceties of the American constitution, it may not be amiss to elaborate it at
31121 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
greater length. The doctrine of Mr. Jefferson,
Iir. Madison, and the majority of our jurists,
would seem to be that the States, under God,
are severally sovereign in all matters not expressly confided to the General government,
and therefore that the American sovereignty is
divided, and the citizen owes-a double allegi.
ance-allegiance to his State, and allegiance to
the United States-as if there was a United
States distinguishable from the States. Hence
Mr. Seward, in an official dispatch to our minister at the court of St. James, says: "The citizen
owes allegiance to the State and to the United
States." And nearly all who hold allegiance
is due to the Union at all, hold that it is also
due to the States, only that which is due to
the United States is paramount, as that under
feudalism due to the overlord. But this is not
the case. There is no divided sovereignty, no
divided allegiance.   Sovereignty is one, and
vests not in the General government or in the
State government, but in the United States, and
allegiance is due to the United States, and to
them alone. Treason can be committed only
against the United States, and against a State
only because against the United States, and is
properly cognizable only by the Federal courts.
Hence the Union men committed no treason in
322 
RECONSTRUCTION.
refusing to submit to the secession ordinances
of their respective States, and in sustaining the
national arms against secession.
There are two very common mistakes: the
one that the States individually possess all the
powers not delegated to the General government; and the other that the Union, or United
States, have only delegated powers. But the
United States possess all the powers of a sovereign state, and the States individually and the
General government possess only such powers
as the United States in convention delegate to
them respectively. The sovereign is neither
the General government nor the States severally, but the United States in convention. The
United States are the one indivisible sovereign,
and this sovereign governs alike general matters in the General government, and particular
matters in the several State governments. All
legal authority in either emanates from this one
indivisible and plenary sovereign, and hence
the laws enacted by a State are really enacted
by the United States, and derive from them
their force and vitality as laws. Hence, as the
United States survive the particular State, the
lapse of the State does not abrogate the State
laws, or dissolve civil society within its jurisdiction.
323 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
This is evidently so, because civil society in
the particular State does not rest on the State
alone, nor on Congress, but on the United
States. Hence all civil rights of every sort
created by the individual State are really held
from the United States, and therefore it was
that the people of non-slaveholding States were,
as citizens of the United States, responsible
for the existence of slavery in the States that
seceded.   There is a solidarity of States in
the Union as there is of individuals in each of
the States. The political error of the Aboli.
tionists was not in calling upon the people of
the United States to abolish slavery, but in
calling upon them to abolish it through the
General government, which had no jurisdiction
in the case; or in their sole capacity as men,
on purely humanitarian grounds, which were
the abrogation of all government  and civil
society itself, instead of calling upon them to
do it as the United States in convention assembled, or by an amendment to the constitution
of the United States in the way ordained by
that constitution itself. This understood, the
constitution and laws of a defunct State remain
in force by virtue of the will of the United
States, till the State is raised fromn the dead,
restored to life and activity, and repeals or al
324 
RECONSTRUCTION.
ters them, or till they are repealed or altered
by the United States or the national convention. But as the defunct State could not, and
the convention had not repealed or altered
them,  save in the one case mentioned,  the
General government had no alternative but to
treat them and all rights created by them
as the territorial law, and to respect them as
such.
What then do the people of the several
States that seceded lose by secession? They
lose, besides incurring, so far as disloyal, the
pains and penalties of treason, their political
rights, or right, as has just been said, to be in
their own  department  self-governing communities, with the right of representation in Congress and the electoral colleges, and to sit in
the national convention, or of being counted in
the ratification of amendments to the constitution-plrecisely what it was shown a Territorial people gain by being admitted as a State
into the Union. This is the difference between
the constitutional doctrine and that adopted
by Mr. Lincoln's and Mr. Johnson's Administrations. But what authority, on this constitutional doctrine, does the General government
gain over the people of States that secede, that
it has not over others'? As to their internal
325 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
constitution, their private rights of person or
property, it gains none. It has over them, till
they are reconstructed and restored to the
Union, the right to institute for them provisional governments, civil or military, precisely
as it has for the people of a territory that is
not and has never been one of the United
States; but in their reconstruction it has less,
for the geographical boundaries and electoral
people of each are already defined by a law
which does not depend on its will, and which it
can neither abrogate nor modify. Here is the
difference between the constitutional doctrine
and that of the so-called radicals.   The State
has gone, but its laws remain, so far as the
United States in convention does not abrogate
them; not because the authority of the State
survives, but because the United States so will,
or are presumed to will. The United States
have by a constitutional amendment abrogated
the laws of the several States authorizing
slavery, and prohibited slavery forever within
the jurisdiction of the Union; and no State
can now be reconstructed and be admitted into
the Union with a constitution that permits
slavery, for that would be repugnant to the
constitution of the United States. If the constitutional amendment is not recognized as rati
326 
RECONSTRUCTION.
fled by the requisite number of States, it is the
fault of the government in persisting in counting as States what are no States.  Negro suffrage, as white suffrage, is at present a question
for the States.
The United States guarantee to such State
a republican form of government. And this
guarantee, no doubt, authorizes Congress to
intervene in the internal constitution of a State
so far as to force it to adopt a republican form
of government, but not so far as to organize a
government for a State, or to compel a terriitorial people to accept or adopt a State constitution for themselves.   If a State attempts to
organize a form of government not republican,
it can prevent it; and if a Territory adopts an
unrepublican form, it can force it to change its
constitution to one that is republican, or conipel it to remain a Territory under a provisional
government. But this gives the General government no authority in the organization or
re-organ-ization of States beyond seeing that
the form of government adopted by the territorial people is republican. To press it further,
to make the constitutional clause a pretext for
assuming the entire control of the organization
or re.-organization of a State, is a manifest abuse
-a palpable violation of the constitution and
327 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
of the whole American system.  The authority
given by the clause is specific, and is no
authority for intervention in the general reconstruction of the lapsed State. It gives authority in no question raised by secession or its
consequences, and can give none, except, from
within or from  without, there is an overt attempt to organize a State in the Union with an
unrepullican form of government.
The General government gives permission to
the territorial people of the defunct State to
reorganize, or it contents itself with suffering
them, without special recognition, to reorganize in their own way, and apply to Congress for
admission, leaviig it to Congress to admlit themas a State, or not, according to its own discretion, in like manner as it admits a new State;
but the re-organization itself must be the work
of the territorial people themselves, under
their old electoral law. The power that reconstructs is in the people themselves; the power
that admits them, or receives them  into the
Union, is Congress. The Executive, therefore,
has no authority in the matter, beyond that of
seeing that the laws are duly complied with;
and whatever power he assumes, whether by
proclamation or by instructions given to the
provisional governors, civil or military, is
328 
RECONSTRUCTION
simply a usurpation of the power of Congress,
which it rests with Congress to condone or not,
as it may see fit. Executive proclamations,
excluding a larger or a smaller portion of the
electoral or territorial people firom the exercise
of the elective franchise in re-organizing, the
State, and executive efforts to throw the State
into the hands of one political party or another,
are au unwarrantable assumption of power; for
the President, in relation to reconstruction, acts
only under the peace powers of the constitution, and simply as the first executive officer of
the Union.  His business is to execute the laws,
not to make them. His legislative authority is
confined to his qualified veto on the acts of
Congress, and to the recommendation to Congress of such measures as he believes are needed
by the country.
In reconstructing a disorganized State, neither
Congress nor the Executive has any power that
either has not in time of peace. The Executive,
as commander-in-chief of the army, may ex necessitctte place it ad inteiim under a military governor, but he cannot appoint even a provisional
civil governor till Congress has created the
office and given himn authority to fill it; far less
can he legally give instructions to the civil
governor as to the mode or manner of recon
329 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
structingc the disorganized State, or decide who
may or may not vote in the preliminary reorganization.  The Executive could do nothing
of the sort, even in regard to a Territory never
erected into a State. It belongs to Congress,
not to the Executive, to erect Territorial or provisional governments, like those of Dacotah,
Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, and New Mexico;
and Congress, not the executive, determines the
boundaries of the Territory, passes the enabling
act, and defines the electoral people, till the
State is organized and able to act herself.
Even Congress, in reconstructing and restoring
to life and vigor in the Union a disorganized
State, has nothing to say as to its boundaries or
its electoral people, nor any right to interfere
between parties in the State, to throw the
reconstructed State into the hands of one or
another party. All that Congress can insist on
is, that the territorial people shall reconstruct
with a government republican in form; that its
senators and representatives in Congress, and
the members of the State legislature, and all
executive and judicial officers of the State shall
be bound by oath or affirmation to support and
defend the constitution of the United States.
In the whole work the President has nothing
to do with reconstruction, except to see that
33(0 
RECONSTRUCTION.
peace is preserved and the laws are fully executed.
It may be at least doubted that the Executive
has power to proclaim amnesty and pardon to
rebels aftelr the civil war has ceased, and ceased
it has when the rebels have thrown down their
arms and submitted; for his pardoning power
is only to pardon after conviction and judgment of the court: it is certain that he has no
power to proscribe or punish even traitors,
except by due process of law. When the war
is over he has only his ordinary peace powers.
Hie cannot then disfranchise any portion of the
electoral people of a State that seceded, even
though there is no doubt that they have taken
part in the rebellion, and may still be suspected
of disloyal sentiments.  Not even Congress can
do it, and no power known to the constitution
till the State is reconstructed can do it without
due process of law, except the national convenition. Should the President do any of the
things supposed, he would both abuse the
power he has andI usurp power that he has
not, and reider himself liable to impeachment.
There are many things very proper, and even
necessary to be done, which are high crimes
when done by an improper person or agent.
The duty of the President, when there are
331 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
steps to be taken or things to be done which
he believes very necessary, but which are not
within his competency, is, if Congress is not in
session, to call it together at the earliest practicable moment, and submit the matter to its
wisdom and discretion.
It must be remembered that the late rebellion was not a merely personal but a territorial
rebellion. In such a rebellion, embracing eleven
States, and, excluding slaves, a population of
at least seven millions, acting under an organized tenritorial government, preserving internal
civil order, supporting an army and navy under
regularly commissioned officers, and carrying on
war as a sovereign nation  in such a territorial
rebellion no one in particular can be accused
and punished as a traitor. The rebellion is not
the workl of a fewv ambitious or reckless leaders,
but of the people, and the responsibility of the
crime, whether civil or military, is not individual, but common to the whole territorial
people engaged in it; and seven millions, or the
half of them, are too many to hang, to exile, or
even to disfranchise. Their defeat and the
failure of their cause must be their punishment.
The interest of the country, as well the sentiment
of the civilized world-it might almost be said
the law of nations-demands their permission
332 
RECONSTRUCTION.
to return to their allegiance, to be treated
according to their future merits, as all integral
portion of the American people.
The sentiment of the civilized world has
much relaxed from its former severity toward
political offenders. It regards with horror the
savage cruelties of Great Britain to the unfort-unate Jacobites, after their defeat under Charles
Edward, at Culloden, in 1746, their barbarous
treatment of the United Irishmen in 1798, and
her brutality to the mutinous Hindoos in 1857'58; the harshness of Russia toward the insurgent
Poles, defeated in their mad attempts to recover
their lost nationality; the severity of Austria,
under Haynau, toward the defeated Magyars.
The liberal press kept up for years, especially
in England and the United States, a perpetual
howl against the Papal and Neapolitan governments for arresting and imprisoning men who
conspired to overthrow them. Louis Kossuth
was no less a traitor than Jefferson Davis, and
yet the United States solicited his release from
a Tijrkislh prison, and sent a national ship to
bring him hither as the nation's guest.  The
people of the United States have held from the
first "the right of insurrection," and have given
their moral support to every insurrection in the
Old or Newv World they discovered, and fortlthem
333 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
to treat with severity any portion of the Southern secessionists, who, at the very worst, only
acted on the principles the nation had  uniforinly avowed and pronounced sacred, would
be regarded, and justly, by the civilized world,
as little less than infamous.
Not only the fair fame, but the interest of
the Union forbids any severity toward the people lately in arms against the government. The
interest of the nation demands not the death or
the expulsion of the secessionists, and, least of
all, of those classes proscribed by the President's proclamation of the 29th of May, 1865, nor
even their disfranchisement, perpetual or tempo.
rary; but their restoration to citizenship, and
their loyal co-operation with all true-hearted
Americans, in healing the wounds inflicted on
the whole country by the civil war. There
need be no fear to trust them. Their cause is
lost; they may or may not regret it, but lost it
is, and lost forever. They appealed to the bal.
lot-box, and were defeated; they appealed from
the ballot-box to arms, to war, and have been
again defeated, terribly defeated. They know
it and feel it. There is no further appeal for
them; the judgment of the court of last resort
has been rendered, and rendered against them.
The cause is finished, the controversy closed,
334 
RECONSTRUCTION.
never to be re-opened. Henceforth the Union
is invincible, and it is worse than idle to attempt to renew the war against it. Henceforth
their lot is bound up with that of the nation,
and all their hopes and interests, for themselves
and their children, and their cllildlren's children,
depend on their being permitted to demean
themselves henceforth as peaceable and loyal
American citizens. They must seek their freedom, greatness, and glory in the freedom,
greatness, and glory of the American republic,
in which, after all, they can be far freer, greater,
more glorious than in a separate and independent confederacy. All the arguments and
considerations urged by Union men against
their secession, come back to them now with
redoubled force to keep them henceforth loyal
to the ULTnion.
They cannot afford to lose the nation, and
the nation cannot afford to lose them. To hang
or exile them, and depopulate and suffer to run
to waste the lands they had cultivated, were
sad thrift, sadder than that of deporting four
millions of negroes and colored men. To exchange only those excepted from amnesty and
pardon by President Johnson, embracing some
two millions or more, the very pars sanior of
the Southern population, for what would re
335 
THE AMERICAIN REPUBLIC
main or flock in to supply their place, would
be only the exchange of Glaucus and I)iomed,
gold for brass; to disfranchise them, confiscate
their estates, and place them under the political control of the freedmen, lately their slaves,
and the ignorant and miserable "white trash,"
would be simply to rendei rebellion chronic,
and to convert seven millions of Americans,
willing and anxious to be free, loyal American citizens, into eternal enemies. They have
yielded to superior numbers and resources;
beaten, but not disgraced, for they have, even in
rebellion, proved themselves what they arereal Americans. They are the product of the
American soil, the free growth of the American republic, and to disgrace them were to disgrace the whole American character and people.
The wise Ronmans never allowed a triumph to
a Roman general for victories, however brilliant,
won over Romans. In civil war, the victory
won by the government troops is held to be a
victory for the country, in which all parties are
victor,s, and nobody is vanquished. It was as
truly for the good of the secessionists to fail, as
it was for those who sustained the government
to succeed; and the government having forced
their submission and vindicated its own author
336 
RECONSTRUCTION.
ity, it should now leave them to enjoy, with
others, the victory which it has won for the
common good of all. When war becomes a stern
necessity, when it breaks out, and while it lasts,
humanity requires it to be waged in earnest,
prosecuted with vigor, and made as damaging, as
distressful to the enemy as the laws of civilized
nations permit. It is the way to bring it to a
speedy close, and to save life and property.
But when it is over, when the enemy submits, and
peace returns, the vanquished should be treated
with gentleness and love.  No rancor should
remain, no vengeance should be sought; they
who met in mortal conflict on the battle.field
should be no longer enemies, but embrace as
comrades, as friends, as brothers.  None but a
coward kicks a fallen foe; a brave people is
generous, and the victors in tile late war can
afford to be generous generously. They fought
for the Union, and the Union has no longer an
enemy;i their late enemies are willing and
proud to be their countrymen, fellow-citizens,
and friends; and they should look to it that
small politicians do not rob them in the eyes
of the world, by unnecessary and ill-timed
severity to the submissive, of the glory of being, as they are, a great, noble, chivalric, gen.
erous, and magnanimous people.
337
I 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
The government and the small politicians,
who usually are the most influential with all
governments, should remember that none of the
secessionists, however much in error they have
been, have committed the moral crime of treason.   They  held, with  the majority of the
American people, the doctrine of State sovereignty, and on that doctrine they had a right
to secede, and have committed no treason, been
guilty of no rebellion. That was, indeed, no
reason why the government should not use all
its force, if necessary, to preserve the national
unity and the integrity of the national domain;
but it is a reason, and a sufficient reason, why
no penalty of treason should be inflicted on
secessionists or their leaders, after their submission, and recognition of the sovereignty of the
United States as that to which they owe
allegiance.   None  of the  secessionists  have
been rebels or traitors, except in outward act,
and there can, after the act has ceased, be no
just punishment where there has been no criminal intent.  Treason is the highest crime, and
deserves exemplary punishment; but not where
there has been no treasonable intent, where they
who committed it did not believe it was treason,
and on principles held by the majority of their
countrymen, and by the party that had gener
338 
RECONSTRUCTION.
ally held the government, there really was no
treason. Concede State sovereignty, and Jeffer.
son Davis was no traitor in the war he made
on the United States, for he made none till his
State had seceded. He could not then be arraigned for his acts after secession, and at most,
only for conspiracy, if at all, before secession.
But, if you permit all to vote in the re-organization of the State who, under the old electoral
law, have the elective franchise, you throw the
State into the hands of those who have been
disloyal to the Union. If so, and you cannot
trust them, the remedy is not in disfranchising
the majority, but in prohibiting re-organization,
and in holding the territorial people still longer
under the provisional government, civil or military.  The old electoral law disqualifies all who
have been convicted of treason either to the
State or the United States, and neither Con
gress nor the Executive can declare any others
disqualified on account of disloyalty. But you
must throw the State into the hands of those
who took part, directly or indirectly, in the
rebellion, if you reconstruct the States at all,
for they are undeniably the great body of the
territorial people in all the States that seceded.
These people having submitted, and declared
their intention to reconstruct the State as a
339 
THE AMERIOAN REPUBLIC.
State in the Union, you must amend the constitution of the United States, unless tlhey are
convicted of a disqualifying crimne by due process of law, before you can disfianchise tiens.
It is impossible to reconstruct any one of the
disorganized States with those alone, or as the
dominant party, who have adhered to the
Union throughout the fearful struggle, as selfgoverning States.  The  State, resting on so
small a portion of the people, would have no
internal strength, no self-support, and could
stand only as upheld by Federal arms, which
would greatly impair the free and healthy
action of the whole American system.
The government attempted to do it in Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, before the rebellion was suppressed, but without
authority and without success. The organizations, effected at great expense, and sustained
only by military force, were neither States nor
State governments, nor capable of being made
so by any executive or congressional action.
If the disorganized States, as the government
held, were still States in the Union, these organizations were flagrantly revolutionary, as
effected not only without, but in defiance of
State authority; if they had seceded and ceased
to be States, as was the fact, they were equally
340 
RECONSTRUCTIOn.
unconstitutional and void of authority, because
not created by the firee suffrage of the territorial people, who alone are competent to construct or reconstruct a State.
If the Unionists had retained the State organization and government, however small their
number, they would have held the State, and
the government would have been bound to
recognize and to defend them as such with all
the force of the Union. The rebellion would
then have been personal, not territorial.  But
such was not the case.  The State organization,
the State government, the whole State authority rebelled, made the rebellion territorial, not
personal, and left the Unionists, very respectable persons assuredly, residing, if they re.
mained at home, in rebel territory, traitors in
the eye of their respective States, and shorn of
all political statu8 or rights. Their political
status was simply that of the old loyalists, or
adherents of the British crown in the American war for Independence, and it was as absurd
to call them the State, as it would have been
for Great Britain to have called the old Tories
the colonies.
The theory on which the government attempted to re-organize the disorganized States
rested on two false assumptions: first, that the
'",41
a 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
people are personally sovereign; and, second,
that all the power of the Union vests in the
General government. The first, as we have
seen, is the principle of so-called "squatter sovereignty," embodied in the famous Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which gave birth, in opposition, to
the Republican party of 1856. The people are
sovereign only as the State, and the State is
inseparable from the domain. The Unionists
without the State government, without any
State organization, could not hold the domain,
which, when the State organization is gone,
escheats to the United States, that is to say,
ceases to exist. The American democracy is
territorial, not personal.
The General government, in time of war or
rebellion, is indeed invested, for war purposes,
with all the power of the Union. This is the
war power. But, though apparently unlimited,
the war power is yet restricted to war purposes,
and expires by natural limitation when peace
returns; and peace returns, in a civil war, when
the rebels have thrown down their arms and
submitted to the national authority, and without any formal declaration. During the war, or
while the rebellion lasts, it can suspend the
civil courts, the civil laws, the State constitutions, any thing necessary to the success of the
342
51 
RECONSTRUCTION.
war-and of the necessity the military authorities are the judges; but it cannot abolish, abrogate, or reconstitute them. On the return of
peace they revive of themselves in all their
vigor. The emancipation proclamation of the
President, if it emancipated the slaves in certain States and parts of States, and if those
whom it emancipated could not be re-enslaved,
did not anywhere abolish slavery, or change
the laws authorizing it; and if the Government should be sustained by Congress or by
the Supreme Court in counting the disorganized States as States in the Union, the legal
,tar'i. of slavery throughout the Union, with
the exception of Maryland, and perhaps Missouri, is what it was before the war.*
The Government undoubtedly supposed, in
the reconstructions it attempted, that it was acting under the war power; but as reconstruction
can never be necessary for war purposes, and as
it is in its very nature a work of peace, incapable of being effected by military force, since its
validity depends entirely on its being the free
action of the territorial people to be reconstructed, the General government had and
could have, with regard to it, only its ordinary
* This was the case in August, 1865. It may be quite otherwise
before these pages see the light.
343 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
peace powers. Reconstruction is j2ue paris, not
jure belli.
Yet such illegal organizations, though they
are neither States nor State governments, and
incapable of being legalized by any action of
the Executive or of Congress, may, nevertheless, be legalized by being indorsed or acquiesced in by the territorial people. They are
wrong, as are all usurpations; they are undemocratic, inasmuch as they attempt to give the
minority the power to rule the majority; they
are dangerous, inasmuch as they place the State
in the hands of a party that can stand only as
supported by the General government, and
thus destroy the proper freedom and independence of the State, and open the door to corrup.
tion, tend to keep alive rancor and ill feeling,
and to retard the period of complete pacifica.
tion, which might be effected in three. months
as well as in three years, or twenty years; yet
they can become le-al, as other governments illegal in their origin become legal, with time
and popular acquiescence. The right way is
always the shortest and easiest; but when a
government must oftener follow than lead the
public, it is not always easy to lit the right
way, and still less easy to take it. The general
instincts of the people are right as to the end
344 
RECONSTRUCTION.
to be gained, but seldom right as to the means
of gaining it; and politicians of the Union party,
as well as of the late secession party, have an eye
in reconstructing, to the future political control
of the State when it is reconstructed.
The secessionists, if permitted to retain their
firanchise, would, even if they accepted abolition, no doubt reorganize their respective States
on the basis of white suffrage, and so would the
Unionists, if left to themselves.  There is no
party at the South prepared to adopt negro suffrage, and there would be none at the North if
the negroes constituted any considerable portion of the population.  As the reconstruction
of a State cannot be done under the war power,
the General government can no more enfranchise than it can disfranchise any portion
of the territorial people, and the question of
negro suffrage must be left, where the conI.
stitution leaves it-to the States severally, each
to dispose of it for itself. Negro suffrage will,
no doubt, come in time, as soon as the freedmen
are prepared for it, and the danger is that it
will be attempted too soon.
It would be a convenience to have the negro
vote in the reconstruction of the States disorgan.
ized by secession, for it would secure their re-construction with anti-slavery constitutions, and also
345 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
'make sure of the proposed anti-slavery amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
but there is no power in Congress to enfranchise
the negroes in the- States needing reconstruction,
and, once assured of their freedom, the freedmen
would care little for the Union, of which they
understand nothing. They would vote, for the
most part, with their foi-rmer masters, their employers, the wealthier and more intelligent
classes, whether loyal or disloyal; for, as a
rule, these will treat them with greater personal consideration and kindness than others.
The dislike of the negro, and hostility to negro equality, increase as you descend in the
social scale. The freedmen, without political
instruction or experience, who  have had no
country, no domicile, understand nothing of
loyalty or of disloyalty.   They have strong
local attachmenets, but they can have no patriotism.  If they adhered to the Union in the
rebellion, fought for it, bled for it, it was not
from loyalty, but because they knew that their
freedom could come only from the success of
the Union arms.  That freedom secured, they
have no longer any interest in the Union, and
their local attachments, personal associations,
habits, tastes, likes and dislikes, are Southern,
not Northern.   In any contest between the
346 
RECONSTRUCTION.
North and the South, they would take, to a
man, the Southern side. After the taunts of the
women, the captured soldiers of the Union
found, until nearly the last year of the war,
nothing harder to bear, when marched as prisoners into Richmond, than the antics and hootings
of the negroes. Negro suffrage on the score of
loyalty, is at best a matter of indifference to
the Union, and as the elective franchise is not
a natural right, but a civil trust, the friends
of the negro should, for the present, be contented with securing him simply equal rights
of person and property.
CL
347
I 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER XIV.
P OLITICA L TENDENCIES.
Tir  most marked political tendency of the
American people has been, since 1825, to interpret their government as a pure and simple
democracy, and to shift it from a territorial to
a purely popular basis, or fiom the people as
the state, inseparably united to the national
territory or domain, to the people as simply
population, either as individuals or as the race.
Their tendency has unconsciously, therefore,
been to change their constitution from a republican to a despotic, or from a civilized to a barbaric constitution.
The American constitution is democratic, in
the sense that the people are sovereign; that all
laws and public acts run in their name; that
the ruleris are elected by them, and are responsible to them; but they are the people terri.
torially constituted and fixed to the soil, constituting what Mr. Disraeli, with more propriety
perhaps than he thinks, calls a "territorial
democracy." To this territorial democracy, the
real American democracy, stand opposed two
348 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
other democracies-the one personal and the
other humanitarian-each alike hostile to civilization, and tending to destroy the state, and
capable of sustaining government only on principles common to all despotisms.
In every man there is a natural craving for
personal freedom and unrestrained action-a
strong desire to'be himself, not another-to be
his own master, to go when and where
he pleases, to do what he chooses, to take
what he wants, wherever he can find it, and to
keep what  he  takes.   It is strong in all
nomadic tribes, who are at once pastoral and
predatory, and is seldom weak in our bold
fri-ontier-men, too often real "border ruffians."
It takes different forms in different stages of
social development, but it everywhere identifies liberty with power. Restricted in its enjoyment to one man, it makes him chief, chief
of the family, the tribe, or the nation; extended in its enjoyment to the few, it founds
an aristocracy, creates a nobility-for nobleman
meant originally only freeman, as it does still
with the Magyars; extended to the many, it
founds personal democracy, a simple association of individuals, in which all are equally free
and independent, and no restraint is imposed
on any one's action, will, or inclination, without
349 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
his own consent, express or constructive. This
is the so-called Jeffersonian democracy, in which
government has no powers but such as it derives from the consent of the governed, and is
personal democracy or pure individualism
philosophically considered, pure egoism, which
says, "I am God."  Under this sort of democracy, based on popular, or rather individual
sovereignty, expressed by politicians when they
call the electoral people, half seriously, half
mockingly, "the sovereigns," there obviously
can be no state, no social rights or civil authority; there can be only a voluntary association, league, alliance, or confederation, in which
individuals may freely act together as long as
they find it pleasant, convenient, or useful,
but from which they may separate or secede
whenever they find it for their interest or
their pleasure to do so. State sovereignty and
secession are based on the same democratic
principle applied to the several States of the
Union instead of individuals.
The tendency to this sort of democracy has
been strong in large sections of the American
people from the first, and has been greatly
strengthened by the general acceptance of the
theory that government originates in compact.
The full realization of this tendency, which, hap
350 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
pily, is impracticable save in theory, would be
to render every man independent alike of every
other man and of society, with full right and
power to make his own will prevail. This
tendency was strongest in the slaveholding
States, and especially, in those States, in the
slaveholdling class, the American imitation of
the feudal nobility of mediaeval Europe; and on
this side the war just ended was, in its most
general expression, a war in defence of personal
democracy, or the sovereignty of the people individually, against the humanitarian democracy,
represented by the abolitionists, and the territorial democracy, represented by the Governmnent.   This  personal  democracy  has  been
signally defeated in the defeat of the late confederacy, and can hardly again become strong
enough to be dangerous.
But  the  humanitarian  democracy,  which
scorns all geographical lines, effaces all in individualities, and professes to plant itself on humanity alone, has acquired by the war new
strength, and is hot without menace to our future. The solidarity of the race, which is the con.
dition of all human life, founds, as we have seen,
society, and creates what are called social rights,
the rights alike of society in regard to individ
uals, and of individuals in regard to society
3,51 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
Territorial divisions or circumscriptions found
particular societies, states, or nations; yet as
the race is one, and all its members live by
communion with God through it and by communion one with another, these particular states
or nations are never absolutely independent of
each other, but bound together by the solidarity of the race, so that there is a real solidarity
of nations as well as of individuals-the truth
underlying Kossuth's famous  declaration of
"the solidarity of peoples."
The solidarity of nations is the basis of international law, binding on every particular
nation, and which every civilized nation recognizes, and enforces on its own subjects or citizens, through its own  courts, as an integral
part of its own municipal or national law.
The personal or individual right is therefore
restricted by the rights of society, and the
rights of the particular society or nation are
limited by international law, or the rights of
universal society-the truth the ex-governor
of Hungary overlooked. The grand error of
Gentilism was in denying the unity and there.
fore the solidarity of the race, involved in its
denial or misconception of the unity of God.
It therefore was never able to assign any solid
basis to international law, and gave it only a
352 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
conventional or customary authority, thus leav.
ing the jus gentium, which it recognized in deed, without any real foundation in the con stitution of things, or authority in the real
world. Its real basis is in the solidarity of the
race, which has its basis in the unity of God,
not the dead or abstract unity asserted by the
old Eleatics, the Neo-Platonists, or the modern
Unitarians, but the living unity consisting in
the threefold relation in the Divine Essence, of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as asserted by
Christian revelation, and believed, more or less
intelligently, by all Christendom.
The tendency in the Southern States has
been to overlook the social basis of the state
or the rights of society founded on the solidarity of the race, and to make  all rights and
powers personal, or individual;  and as only
the white race has been able to assert and
maintain its personal freedom, only men of
that race are held to have the right to be
free. Hence the people of those States felt no
scruple in holding the black or colored race as
slaves. Liberty, said they, is the right only of
those who have the ability to assert and maintain it. Let the negro prove that he has this
ability by asserting and maintaining his freedom, and he will prove his right to be free,
23
353 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
and that it is a gross outrage, a manifest injustice, to enslave him; but, till then, let him
be my servant, which is best for him and for
me.  Why ask me  to free him?   I shall by
doing so only change the form of his servitude.
Why appeal to me?  Am I my brother's keeper?  Nay, is he my  brother?  Is this negro,
more like an ape or a baboon than a human
being, of the same race with myself? I believe it not. But in some instances, at least,
my dear slaveholder, your slave is literally your
brother, and sometimes even your son, born of
your own daughter. The tendency of the
Southern democrat was to deny the unity of
the race, as well as all obligations of society to
protect the weak and helpless, and therefore all
true civil society.
At the North there has been, and is even
yet, an opposite tendency-a tendency to exaggerate the social element, to overlook the territorial basis of the state, and to disregard
the rights of individuals. This tendency has
been and is strong in the people called abolitionists. The American abolitionist is so engrossed with the unity that he loses the solidarity of the race, which supposes unity of
race and multiplicity of individuals; and fails
to see any thing legitimate and authoritative in
3.54 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
geographical divisions or territorial circumscrip tions. Back of these, back of individuals, he sees
humanity, superior to individuals, superior to
states, governments, and laws, and holds that he
may trample on them all or give them to the
winds at the call of humanity or "the higher law."
The principle on which he acts is as indefensible as the personal or egoistical democracy of
the slaveholders and their sympathizers.  Were
his socialistic tendency to become exclusive and
realized, it would found in the name of humanity a complete social despotism, which, proving
impracticable from its very generality, would
break up in anarchy, in which might makes
right, as in the slaveholder's democracy.
The abolitionists, in supporting themselves on
humanity in its generality, regardless of individual and terrnitorial rights, can recognize no state,
no civil authority, and therefore are as much
out of the order of civilization, and as much in
that of barbarism, as is the slaveholder himself. Wendell Phillips is as far removed from
true Christian civilization as was John C. Calhoun, and William Lloyd Garrison is as much
of a barbarian and despot in principle and
tendency as Jefferson Davis. Hence the great
body of the people in the non-slaveholding
States, wedded to American democracy as they
355 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
were and are, could never, as much as they detested slavery, be induced to make commion
cause with the abolitionists, and their apparent
union in the late civil war was accidental, simply owing to the fact that for the time the
social democracy and the territorial coincided,
or had the same enemy.  The great body of tl,(.
loyal people instinctively felt that pure social.
ism is as incompatible with American democracy
as pure individualism; and the abolitionists
are well aware that slavery has been abolished,
not for humanitarian or socialistic reasons, but
really for reasons of state, in order to save the
territorial democracy. The territorial democracy would not unite to eliminate even so barbaric an element as slavery, till the rebellion
gave them the constitutional right to abolish it;
and even then so scrupulous were they, that
they demanded a constitutional amendment, so
as to be able to make clean work of it, without
any blow to individual or State rights.
The abolitionists were right in opposing
slavery, but not in demanding its abolition on
humanitarian or socialistic grounds. Slavery
is really a barbaric element, and is in direct
antagonism to American civilization. The whole
force of the national life opposes it, and must
finally eliminate it, or become itself extinct;
356 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
and it is no mean proof of their utter want of
sympathy with all the living forces of modern
civilization, that the leading men of the South
and their prominent friends at the North really
persuaded themselves that with  cotton, rice,
and tobacco, they could effectually resist the
anti-slavery movement, and perpetuate their
barbaric democracy. They studied the classics,
they admired Greece and Rome, and imagined
that those nations became great by slavery,
instead of being great even in spite of slavery.
They failed to take into the account the fact
that when Greece and Rome were in the zenith
of their glory, all contemporary nations were
also slaveholding nations, and that if they
were the greatest and most highly civilized
nations of their times, they were not fitted to
be the greatest and most highly civilized nations of all times. They failed also to perceive
that, if the Groecc-Roman republic did not
include the whole territorial people in the
political people, it yet recognized both the
social and the territorial foundation of the
state, and never attempted to rest it on pure
individualism; they forgot, too, that Greece
and Rome both fell, and fell precisely through
internal weakness caused by the barbarism
within, not through the force of the barbarism
357
or 
TiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
beyond their frontiers. The world has changed
since the time when ten thousand of his slaves
were sacrificed as a religious offering to the
manes of a single Roman master. The infusion
of the Christian dogma of the unity and solidarity of the race into the belief, the life, the laws,
the jurisprudence of all civilized nations, has
doomed slavery and every species of barbarism;
but this our slaveholding countrymen saw not.
It rarely happens that in any controversy, individual or national, the real issue is distinctly
presented, or the precise question in debate is
clearly and distinctly understood by either
party. Slavery was only incidentally involved
in the late war.  The war was occasioned by
the collision of two extreme parties; but it
was itself a war between civilization and barbarism, primarily between the territorial democracy and the personal democracy, and in reality,
on the part of the nation, as much a war
against the socialism of the abolitionist as
against the individualism of the slaveholder.
Yet the victory, though complete over the former, is only half won over the latter, for it has
left the humanitarian democracy standing, and
perhaps for the moment stronger than ever.
The socialistic democracy was enlisted by the
territorial, not to strengthen the government at
858 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
home, as it imagines, for that it did not do,
and could not do, since the national instinct
was even more opposed to it than to the personal democracy; but under its anti-slavery
aspect, to soften the hostility of foreign powers,
and ward off foreign intervention, which was
seriously  threatened.   The  populations  of
Europe, especially of France and England,
were decidedly anti-slavery, and if the war
here appeared to them a war, not solely for the
unity of the nation and the integrity of its
domain, as it really was, in which they
took and could take no interest, but a war for
the abolition of slavery, their governments
would not venture to intervene. This was the
only consideration that weighed with Mr. Lincoln, as he himself assured the author, and
induced him to issue his Emancipation Proclamation; and Europe rejoices in our victory
over the rebellion only so far as it has liberated
the slaves, and honors the late President only
as their supposed liberator, not as the preserver
of the unity and integrity of the nation. This
is natural enough abroad, and proves the wisdom
of the anti-slavery policy of the government,
which had become absolutely necessary to save
the Republic long before it was adopted; yet it
is not as the emancipator of some two or three
359 
TiE AMfERICAN REPUBLIC.
millions of slaves that the American patriot
cherishes the memory of Abraham Lincoln, but,
aided by the loyal people, generals of rare
merit, and troops of unsurpassed bravery and
endurance, as the saviour of the American state,
and the protector of modern civilization. His
anti-slavery policy served this end, and therefore
was wise, but he adopted it with the greatest
possible reluctance.
There  were greater issues in the late was
than negro slavery or negro freedom.  That
was only an incidental issue, as the really great
men  of the  Confederacy felt, who  to save
their cause were willing themselves at last to
free and arm their own negroes, and perhaps
were willing to do it even at first. This fact
alone proves that they had, or believed they had,
a far more important cause than the preservation of negro slavery. They fought for personal democracy, under the form of State
sovereignty, against social democracy; for personal freedom and independence against social
or humanitarian despotism; and so far their
cause was as good as that against which they
took up arms; and if they had or could have
fought against that, without fighting at the
same time against the territorial, the real
American, the only civilized democracy, they
360 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
would have succeeded.  It is not socialism nor
abolitionism that has won; nor is it the North
that has conquered. The Union itself has won
no victories over the South, and it is both his torically and legally false to say that the South
has been subjugated.  The Union  has pre served itself and American civilization, alike
for North and South, East and West. The
armies that so often met in the shock of battle
were not drawn up respectively by the North
and the South, but by two rival democracies,
to decide which of the two should rule the
future. They were the armies of two mutually
antagonistic systems, and neither army was
clearly and distinctly conscious of the cause
for which it was shedding its blood; each
obeyed instinctively a power stronger than itself, and which at best it but dimly discerned.
On  both sides the cause was broader  and
deeper than negro slavery, and neither the proslavery men nor the abolitionists have won.
The territorial democracy alone has won, and
won what will prove to be a final victory over
the purely personal democracy, which had its
chief seat in the Southern States, though by no
means confined, to them. The danger to American democracy firom that quarter is forever
removed, and democracy a' la Rousseau has
361 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
received a terrible defeat throughout the world,
though as yet it is far from being aware of it.
But in this world victories are never complete. The socialistic democracy claims the
victory which has been really won by the territorial democracy, as if it had been socialism,
not patriotism, that fired the hearts and nerved
the arms of the brave men led-by McClellan,
Grant, and Sherman. The humanitarians are
more dangerous in principle  than  the  egoists, for they have the appearance of building on a broader and deeper foundation, of being
more Christian, more philosophic, more generous and philanthropic; but Satan is never more
successful than under the guise of an angel of
light. His favorite guise in modern times is
that of philanthropy. He is a genuine humanitarian, and aims to persuade the world
that humanitarianism is Christianity, and that
man is God; that the soft and charming senti ment of philanthropy is real Christian charity;
and he dupes both individuals and nations, and
makes them do his work, when they believe
they are earnestly and most successfully doing
the work of God. Your leading abolitionists
are as much affected by satanophany as your
leading confederates, nor are they one whit
more philosophical or less sophistical. The one
362 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
loses the race, the other the individual, and
neither has learned to apply practically that
fundamental truth that there is never the general without the particular, nor the particular
without the general, the race without individuals,
nor individuals without the race. The whole race
was in Adam, and fell in him, as we are taught
by the doctrine of original sin, or the sin of the
race, and Adam was an individual, as we are
taught in the fact that original sin was in him
actual or personal sin.
The humanitarian is carried away by a vague
generality, and loses men in humanity, sacrifices the rights of men in a vain endeavor to
secure the rights of man, as your Calvinist or
his brother Jansenist sacrifices the rights of
nature in order to secure the freedom of grace.
Yesterday he agitated for the abolition of
slavery, to.day he agitates for negro suffrage,
negro equality, and announces that when he
has secured that he will agitate for female suffiage and the equality of the sexes, forgetting
or ignorant that the relation of equality subsists
only between individuals of the same sex;
that God made the man the head of the
woman, and the woman for the man, not the
man for the woman. Having obliterated all
distinction of sex in politics, in social, in
363 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
dustrial, and domestic arrangement, he must
go farther, and agitate for equality of property.
But since property, if recognized at all, will be
unequally acquired and distributed, he must go
farther still, and agitate for the total abolition
of property, as an injustice, a grievous wrong,
a theft, with M. Proudheon, or the Englishman Godwin. It is unjust that one should
have what another wants, or even more than
another. What right have you to ride in your
coach or astride your spirited barb while I am
forced to trudge on foot? Nor can our humanitarian stop there. Individuals are, and as
long as there are individuals will be, unequal:
some are handsomer and some are uglier, some
wiser or sillier, more or less gifted, stronger or
weaker, taller or shorter, stouter or thinner
than others, and therefore some have natural
advantages which others have not.  There is
inequality, therefore injustice, which can be
remedied only by the abolition of all individualities, and the reduction of all individuals to
the race, or humanity, man in general. He can
find no limit to his agitation this side of vague
generality, which is no reality, but a pure nullity, for he respects no territorial or individual
circumscriptions, and must regard creation itself
as a blunder. This is not fancy, for he has
364 
7
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
gone very nearly as far as it is here shown, if
logical, lie must go.
The danger now is that the Union victory
will, at home and abroad, be interpreted as a
victory won in the interest of social or humanitalian democracy.  It was because they regarded the war waged on the side of the Union
as waged in the interest of this terrible democracy, that our bishops and clergy sympathized
so little with the Government in prosecuting
it; not, as some imagined, because they were
disloyal, hostile to American or territorial
democracy, or not heartily in favor of freedom
for all men, whatever their race or complexion.
They had no wish to see slavery prolonged, the
evils of which they, better than any other class
of men, knew, and more deeply deplored; none
would have regretted more than they to have
seen the Union broken up; but they held the
socialistic or humanitarian democracy represented by Northern abolitionists as hostile alike
to the Chirlch and to civilization. For the same
reason that they were backward or reserved in
their sympathy, all the humanitarian sects at
home and abroad were forward and even osten
tatious in theirs. The Catholics feared the
war might result in encouraging Ia Republigue
dcmocratigue et Yociale; the humanitarian sects
365
I 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
trusted that it would. If the victory of the
Union should turn out to be a victory for the
humanitarian democracy, the civilized world
will have no reason to applaud it.
That there is some danger that for a time
the victory will be taken as a victory for humanitarianism or socialism, it would be idle to
deny. It is so taken now, and the humanitari.
an party throughout the world are in ecstasies
over it. The party claim it. The European
Socialists and Red Republicans applaud it, and
the Mazzinis and the Garibaldis inflict on us the
deep humiliation of their congratulations. A
cause that can be approved by the revolutionary leaders of European Liberals must be
strangely misunderstood, or have in it some
infamous element. It is no compliment to a
nation to receive the congratulations of men
who assert not only people.king, but peopleGod; and those Americans who are delighted
with them are worse enemies to the American
democracy than ever were Jefferson Davis and
his fellow conspirators, and more contemptible,
as the swindler is more contemptible than the
highwayman.
But it is probable the humanitarians have
reckoned without their host. Not they are the
real victors. When the smoke of battle has
366 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
cleared away, the victory, it will be seen, has
been won by the Republic, and that that alone
has trimuphed.  The abolitionists, in so far as
they asserted the unity of the race and opposed
slavery as a denial of that unity, have also
won; but in so far as they denied the reality
or authority of territorial and individual circumscriptions, followed a purely socialistic tendency, and sought to dissolve patriotism into a
,watery sentimentality called philanthropy, have
in reality been crushingly defeated, as they will
find when the late insurrectionary States are
fully reconstructed. The Southern or egoistical
democrats, so far as they denied the unity and
solidarity of the race, the rights of society over
individuals, and the equal rights of each and
every individual in face of the state, or the
obligations of society to protect the weak and
help the helpless, have been also defeated; but
so far as they asserted personal or individual
rights which society neither gives nor can take
away, and so far as they asserted, not State sov.
ereignty, but State rights, held independently
of the General government, and which limit its
authority and sphere of action, they share in
the victory, as the future will prove.
European Jacobins, revolutionists, conspiring
openly or secretly against all legitimate author
367 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ity, whether in Church or State, have no lot or
part in the victory of the American people:
not for them nor for men with their nefarious designs or mad dreams, have our brave soldiers
fought, suffered, and bled for four years of the
most terrible war in modern times, and against
troops as brave and as well led as themselves;
not for them has the country sacrificed a million
of lives, and contracted a debt of four thousand
millions of dollars, besides the waste and destruction that it will take years of peaceful industry
to repair. They and their barbaric democracy
have been defeated, and civilization has won its
most brilliant victory in  all history.   The
American democracy has crushed, actually or
potentially, every species of barbarism in the
New World, asserted victoriously the state, and
placed the government definitively on the side
of legitimate authority, and made its natural association henceforth with all civilized governments-not with the revolutionary movements
to overthrow them.  The American people will
always be progressive as well as conservative;
but they have learned a lesson, which they
much needed, against false democracy: civil
war has taught them that "the sacred right
of insurrection" is as much out of place in a
democratic state as in an aristocratic or a mon.
368 
POLITICATL TENDENCIES.
archical state; and that the government should
always be clothed with ample authority to ar rest and punish whoever plots its destruction.
They must never be delighted again to have
their government send a national ship to bring
hither a noted traitor to his own sovereign as
the nation's guest. The people of the Northern
States are hardly less responsible for the late
rebellion than the people of the Southern States.
Their press had taught them to call every governiment a tyranny that refused to remain quiet
while the traitor was cutting its throat or assassinating the nation, and they had nothing
but miad denunciations of the Papal, the Austrian, and the Neapolitan governments for their
severity against conspirators and traitors.  But
their own governmenlt has found it necessary
for the public safety to be equally arbitrary,
prompt, and severe, and they will most likely require it hereafter to co-operate with the governments of the Old World in advancing civilization, instead of lending all its moral support, as
heretofore, to the Jacobins, revolutionists, socialists, andi humanitarians, to bring back the
reign of barbarism.
The  tenulency to individualism  has  been
sufficiently checked by the failure of the rebellion, and no danger from the disintegrating
I 0
25
t
369 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
element, either in the particular State or in
th  United States, is henceforth to be apprehended. But the tendency in the opposite direction may give the American state some
trouble. The tendency now is, as to the Union,
consolidation, and as to the particular state, humanitarianisiu, socialism, or centralized democ.
racy. Yet this tendency, though it may do
much mischlief, will hardly become exclusive.
The States that seceded, when restored, will always, even in abandoning State sovereignty,
resist it, and still assert State rights. When
these States are restored to their normal position, they will always be able to protect themselves against any encroachments on their special rights by the General government. The constitution, in the distribution of the powers of
government, provides the States severally with
ample means to protect their individuality
against the centralizing tendency of the General government, however strong it may be.
The war has, no doubt, had a tendency to
strengthen the General government, and to cause
the people, to a great extent, to look upon it as
the supreme and exclusive national government,
and to regard the several State governments as
subordinate instead of co-ordinate governments.
It is not improbable that the Executive, since
0
370 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES
the outbreak of the rebellion, has proceeded
throughout on that supposition, and hence his
extraordinary assumptions of power; but when
once peace is fully re-established, and the States
have all resumed their normal position in the
Union, every State will be found prompt enough
to resist any attempt to encroach on its con.
stitutional rights. Its instinct of self-preservation will lead it to resist, and it will be protected by both its own judiciary and that of
the United States.
The danger that the General government
will usurp the rights of the States is far
less than the danger that the Executive will
usurp all the powers of Congress and the ju
diciary. Congress, during the rebellion, clothed
the President, as far as it could, with dictatorial powers, and these powers the Executive continues to exercise even after the rebellion is suppressed. They were given and
held under the rights of war, and for war purposes only, and expired by natural limitation
when the war ceased; but the Executive forgets this, and, instead of calling Congress together and submitting the work of reconstruction of the States that seceded to its wisdom
and authority, undertakes to reconstruct them
himself, as if he were an absolute sovereign;
O
371 
4
TTHEa AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
and the people seem to like it.  He might and
should, as commander-in-chief of the army and
navy, govern them as military departments,
by his lieutenants, till Congress could either
create provisional civil governments for them
or recognize them as self-governing States in
the Union; but he has no right, under the constitution nor under the war power, to appoint
civil governors, permanent or provisional; and
every act he has done in regard to reconstruction is sheer usurpation, and done without authority and without the slightest plea of necessity. His acts in this respect, even if wise and
just in themselves, are inexcusable, because
done by one who has no legal right to do
them. Yet his usurpation is apparently sustained by public sentiment, and a deep wound
is inflicted on the constitution, which will be
long in healing.
The danger in this respect is all the greater
because it did not originate with the rebellion,
but had manifested itself for a long time before.
There is a growing disposition on the part of
Congress to throw as much of the business of
government as possible into the hands of the
Executive.   The  patronage  the Executive
wields, even in times of peace, is so large that
he has indirectly an almost supreme control
372 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
over the legislative branch of the government.
For this, which is, and, if not checked will con
tinue to be, a growing evil, there is no obvious
remedy, unless the President is chosen for a
longer term of office and made ineligible for a
secoind term, and the mischievous doctrine of
rotation in office is rejected as incompatible
with the true interests of the public.   Here is
matter for the consideration of the American
statesman. But as to the usurpations of the
Executive in these unsettled times, they will
be only temporary, and will cease when the
States are all restored. They are abuses, but
only temporary abuses, and the Southern States,
when restored to the UJnion, will resume their
rights in their own sphere, as self-governing
communities, and legalize or undo the unwar.
rantable acts of the Federal Executive.
The socialistic and centralizing tendency in
the bosom of the individual States is the most
dangerous, but it will not be able to become
predominant; for philanthropy, unlike charity, does not begin at home, and is powerless
unless it operates at a distance. In the States in
which the humanitarian  tendencyis the strongest,
the territorial democracy has its most effective
organization.   Prior to the outbreak of the
rebellion the American people had asserted
373 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
popular sovereignty, but had never rendered
an account to themselves in what sense the people are or are not sovereign. They had never
distinguished the three sorts of democracy from
one another, asked themselves which of the
three is the distinctively American democracy.
For them, democracy was democracy, and those
who saw dangers ahead sought to avoid them
either by exaggerating one or the other of
the two exclusive tendencies, or else by re.
straining democracy itself through restrictions
on suffrage. The latter class began to distrust
universal suffrage, to lose faith in the people,
and to dream of modifying the American constitution so as to make it conform more nearly
to the English model. The war has proved
that they were wrong, for nothing is more certain than that the people have saved the national
unity and integrity almost in spite of their government. The General government either was
not disposed or was afraid to take a decided
stand against secession, till forced to do it by
the people themselves. No wise American can
henceforth distrust American democracy.  The
people may be trusted. So much is settled.
But as the two extremes were equally democratic, as the secessionists acted in the name of
popular sovereignty, and as the humanitarians
374 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
were not unwilling to allow separation, and
would not and did not engage in the war against
secession for the sake of the Union and the integrity of the national domain, the conviction
becomes irresistible that it was not democracy
in the sense of either of the extremes that
made the war and came out of it victorious; and
hence the real-American democracy must differ
firom them both, and is neither a personal nor a
humanitarian, but a territorial democracy. The
true idea of American democracy thus comes
out, for the first time, freed from the two extreme democracies which have been identified
with it, and henceforth enters into the understandings as well as the hearts of the people.
The war has enlightened patriotism, and what
was sentiment or instinct becomes reason-a
well-defined, and clearly understood constitutional conviction.
In the several States themselves there are
many things to prevent the socialistic tendency
from becoming exclusive.  In the States that
seceded socialism has never had a foothold, and
will not gain it, for it is resisted by all the sentiments, convictions, and habits of the Southern
people, and the Southern people will not be exterminated nor swamped by migrations either
from the North or from Europe. They are and
375 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
always will be an agricultural people, and an
agricultural people are and always will be opposed to socialistic dreams, unless unwittingly
held for a moment to favor it in pursuit of sorme
special object in which they take a passionate
interest.  The worst of all policies is that of
hanging, exiling, or disfranchising the wealthy
landholders of the South, in order to bring up
the poor and depressed whites, shadowed forth
in the Executive proclamation of the 29th of
May, 1865.  Of course that policy will not be
carried out and if the negroes are enfiranchised,
they will always vote with the wealthy land.
holding class, and aid them in resisting all
socialistic tendencies.  The humanitarians will
fail for the want of a good social grievance
against which they can declaim.
In the New England States the humanitarian tendency is strong as a speculation, but
only in relation to objects at a distance. It is
aided much by the congregational constitution
of their religion; yet it is weak at home, and
is resisted practically by the territorial division
of power.  New En:gland means Massachusetts,
and nowhe-ro s the subdivision of the powers of government carried further, or the constitution of the territorial democracy more complete, than in that State. Philanthropy sel
376 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
dom works ill private against private vices and
evils: it is effective only against public grievances, and the farther they are from home and
the less its right to interfere with them, the
more in earnest and the more effective for evil
does it become. Its nature is to mind every
one's business but its own.   But  now that
slavery is abolished, there is nowhere in the
United( States a social grievance of magnitude
enough to enlist any considerable number of
the people, even of Mlassachusetts, in a movement to redress it.  Negro enfranchisement is
a question of which the humanitarians  can
make something, and they will make the most
of it; but as it is a question that each State
will soon settle for itself, it will not serve their
purpose of prolonged agitation. They could
not and never did carry away the nation, even
on the question of slavery itself, and abolitionism had comparatively little direct influence in
abolishing slavery; and the exclusion of negro
suffrage can never be made to appear to the
American people as any thing like so great a
grievance as was slavery.
Besides, in all the States that did not secede,
Catholics are a numerous and an important portion of the population.  Their increasing numbers, wealth, and education secure them, as much
377 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
as the majority may dislike their religion, a
constantly increasing influence, and it is idle to
leave them out in counting the future of the
country.  They will, in a very few years, be
the best and most thoroughly educated class
of the American people; and, aside from their
religion, or, rather, in consequence of their re
ligion, the most learned, enlightened, and intelligent portion of the American population; and
as much as they have disliked the abolitionists,
they have, in the army and elsewhere, contributed their full share to the victory the nation
has won. The best things written on the controversy have been written by Catholics, and
Catholics are better fitted by their religion to
comprehend the real character of the American
constitution than any other class of Americans, the moment they study it in the light of
their own theology. The American constitution is based on that of natural society, on the
solidarity of the race, and the difference between natural society and the church or Christian society is, that the one is initial and the
other teleological. The law of both is the
same; Catholics, as such, must resist both extremes, because each is exclusive, and whatever
is exclusive or one-sided is uncatholic. If they
have been backward in their sympathy with
378 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
the government, it has been through their dis.
like of the puritanic spirit and the humanita
rian or socialistic elements they detected ill the
Republican party, joined with a prejudice
against political and social negro equality. But
their church everywhere opposes the socialistic
movements of the age, all movements in behalf
of barbarism, and they may always be counted
on to resist the advance of the socialistic democracy. If the country has had reason to
complain of some of them in the late war, it
will have, in the future, far stronger reason to
be grateful; not to them, indeed, for the citizen
owes his life to his country, but to their religion, which has been and is the grand protectress of modern society and civilization.
From the  origin of the government there
has been a tendency to the extension of suffrage,
and to exclude both birth and private property
as bases of political rights or franchises. This
tendency has often been justified on the ground
that the elective frianchise is a natural right;
which is not true, because the elective franchise
is political power, and political power is always
a civil trust, never a natural right, and the
state judges for itself to whom it will or will
not confide the trust; but there can be no
doubt that it is a normal tendency, and in strict
379 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
accordance with the constitution of American
civil society, which rests on the unity of the
race, and public instead of private property.
All political distinctions founded on birth, race,
or private wealth are anomalies in the American system, and are necessarily eliminated by
its normal developments.  To contend that none
but property-holders may vote, or none but persons of a particular race may be enfranchised,
is unAmerican and contrary to the order of civilization the New World is developing. The
only qualification for the elective franchise the
American system can logically insist on is that
the elector belong to the territorial peoplethat is, be a natural-born or a naturalized citizen, be a major in full possession of his natural
faculties, and unconvicted of any infamous offence. The State is free to naturalize foreign.
ers or not, and under such restrictions as it
judges proper; but, having naturalized them,
it must treat them as standing on the same
footing with natural-born citizens.
The naturalization question is one of great
national importance.   The migration of foreigners hither has added largely to the national
population, and to the national wealth and resources, but less, perhaps, to the development
of patriotism, the purity of elections, or the
380 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
wisdom and integrity of the government.  Tt is
impossible that there should be perfect harmony
between the national territorial democracy and
individuals born, brought up, and formed under
a political order in many respects widely different from it; and there is no doubt that the
democracy, in its objectionable sense, has been
greatly strengthened by the large infusion of
naturalized citizens.  There can be no question
that, if the laboring classes, in whom the national sentiment is usually the strongest, had
been composed almost wholly of native Americans, instead of being, as they w ere, at least in
the cities, large towns, and villages, composed
almost exclusively of persons foreign born, the
Government would have found far less difficulty in filling up the depleted ranks of its armies.
But to leave so large a portion of the actual
population as the foreign born residing in the
country without the rights of citizens, would
have been a far graver evil, and would, in the
late struggle, have given the victory to secession. There are great national advantages derived fiomn the migration hither of foreign labor,
and if the migration be encouraged or permitted,
naturalization on easy and liberal terms is the
w is e t, the best, and only safe policy.  The children of foreign-born parents are real Americans.
381 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
Emigration has, also, a singular effect in developing the latent powers of the emigrant, and
the children of emigrants are usually more
active, more energetic than the children of the
older inhabitants of the country among whom
they settle. Some of our first men in civil life
have been sons of foreign-born parents, and so
are not a few of our greatest and most succssful generals. The most successful of our merchants have been foreign-born.  The same thing
has been noticed elsewhere, especially in the
emigration of the French Huguenots to Holland,
Germany, England, and Ireland. The ii-migration of so many millions from the Old World
has, no doubt, given to the American people
much of their bold, energetic, and adventurous
character, and made them a superior people on
the whole to what they would otherwise have
been. This has nothing to do with superiority
or inferiority of race or blood, but is a natural
effect of breaking men away from routine, and
throwing them back on their own individual
energies and personal resources.
Resistance is offered to negro suffrage, and
justly too, till the recently emancipated slaves
have served an apprenticeship to freedom; but
that resistance cannot long stand before the onward progress of American democracy, which
382 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
asserts equal rights for all, and not for a race
or class only. Some would confine suffrage to
landholders, or, at least, to propertyholders;
but that is inconsistent with the American idea,
and is a relic of the barbaric constitution which
founds power on private instead of public
wealth. Nor are property-owners a whit more
likely to vote for the public good than are those
who own no property but their own labor. The
mnen of wealth, the business men, manufacturers and merchants, bankers and brokers, are the
men who exert the worst influence on government in every country, for they always strive
to use it as an instrument of advancing their
own private interests. They act on the beautifuil maxim, " Let government take care of the
rich, and the rich will take care of the poor',"
instead of the far safer maxim, "Let government take care of the weak, the strong can take
care of themselves." Universal suffrage is better than restricted suffrage, but even universal
~uffi-age is too -weak to prevent private property
from having an undue political influence.
The evils attributed to universal suffrage are
not inseparable from it, and, after all, it is
doubtful if it elevates men of an inferior class
to those elevated by restricted suffrage. The
Congress of 1860, or of 1862, was a fair average
383 
THE AMERICAN IREPUBLIC.
of the wvisdom, the talent, and the virtue of the
country, and not inferior to that of 1776, or
thlat of 1789; and the Executive during the rebellion was at least as able and as efficient as
it wavs during the war of 1812, far superior to
that of Great Britain, and not inferior to that
of France during the Crimean war.  The Crimean war developed and placed in high comnmand, either with the English or the French, no
generals equal to Halleck, Grant, and Sherman,
to say nothing of others. The more aristocratic
South proved itself, in both statesmanship and
generalship, in no respect superior to the territorial democracv of the North and West.
The great evil the country experiences is not
from universal suffrage, but from what may
be called rotation in office. The number of political aspirants is so great that, in the Northern
and Western States especially, the representatives in Congress are changed every two or four
years, and a member, as soon as he has acquired
the experience necessary to qualify him for his
position, is dropped, not through the fickleness
of his constituency, but to give place to another
whose aid had been necessary to his first or
second election.  Employes are "rotated," not
because they are incapable or unfaithful, but
because there are others who want their places.
084 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
This is all bad, but it springs not from univer sal sunfiage, but from a wrong public opinion,
which migiht be corrected by the press, but
which is mainly formed by it.  There is, no
doubt, a due share of oflicial corruption, but
not more than elsewhere, and that would be
much diminished by increasing thle salaries of
thle public servants, especidally in the higher
offices of the government, both General and
State.  The pay to the lo(wer officers and employes of the government, and to the privates
and non-commissioned officeris in the army, is
liberal, and, in general, too liberal; but the pay
of the higher grades in both the civil and military service is too low, and relatively far lower
than it was when the government was ilrst organized.
The  worst  tendency in the country, and
which is not encouraged at all by the territorial democracy, manifests itself in hostility to
the military spirit and a standing army.  The
depreciation of the military spirit comes from
the humanitarian or sentiniental democracy,
which, like all sentimenltalisms, defeats itself,
and brings about the very evils it seeks to
avoid.  Thie hostility to standing armies is inherited from England, and originated in the
quarrels between king andl parliament, and is a
2G~~~
26
385 
THE A LVMERICAN REPUBLIC.
striking evidence of the folly of that bundle of
antagonistiecforces called the British constitution.
In feudal times most of the land was held by
military service, and the reliance of government
was on the feudal militia; but no real progress
was made in eliminating barbarism till the national authority got a regular army at its command, and became able to defend itself against
its enemies. It is very doubtful if English civilization has not, upon the whole, lost more than
it has gained by substituting parliamentary for
royal supremacy, and exchanging the Stuarts
for the Guelfs.
No nation is a living, prosperous nation that
has lost the military spirit, or in which the profession of the soldier is not held in honor and
esteem; and a standing army of reasonable size
is public economy. It absorbs in its ranks a
class of men who are worth more there than
anywhere else; it creates honorable places for
gentlemen or the sons of gentlemen without
wealth, in which they can serve both them.
selves and their country. Under a democratic
government the most serious embarrassment
to the state is its gentlemen, or persons not
disposed or not fitted to support themselves
by their own hands, more necessary in a democratic government than in any other.  The civil
386 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
service, divinity, law, and medicine, together
with literature, science, and art, cannot absorb
the whole of this ever-increasing class, and the
arry and navy would be an economy and a
real service to the state were they maintained
only for the sake of the rank and position they
give to their officers, and the wholesome infiuence these officers would exert on society and
the politics of the country-this even in case
there were no wars or apprehension of wars.
They supply an element needed in all society,
to sustain in it the chivalric and heroic spirit,
perpetually endangered by the mercantile and
political spirit, which has in it always something low and sordid.
But wars are inevitable, and when a.nation
has no surrounding nations to fight, it will, as
we have just proved, fight itself. When it can
have no foreign war, it will get up a domestic
war; for the human animal, like all animals,
must work off in some way its fighting humor,
and the only sure way of maintaining peace is
always to be prepared for war.   A  regular
standing army of forty thousand men would
have prevented the Mexican war, and an army
of fifty thousand well-disciplined and efficient
troops at the command of the President on his
inauguration in March, 1861, would have pre.
387 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
vented  the rebellion, or have  instantly suppressed it.  The cost of maintaining a land
army of even a hundred thousand men, and a
naval force to correspond, would have been, in
simple money value, only a tithe of what the
rebellion has cost the nation, to say nothing of
the valuable lives that have been sacrificedfor the losses on the rebel side, as well as those
on the side of the government, are equally to be
counted.  The actual losses to the country have
been not less than six or eight thousand millions
of dollars, or nearly one-half the assessed value
of the whiole property of the United States according to the census returns of 1860, aid which
has only been partially cancelled by actual increase of property since. To meet the interest on
the debt incurred will require a heavier sumi to
be raised annually by taxation, twice over, without discharging a cent of the principal, than
would have been necessary to maintain an army
and navy adequate to the protection of peace
and the prevention of the rebellion.
The rebellion is now suppressed, and if the
government  does not blunder much more in
its civil efforts at pacification than it did in its
military operations, before 1868 things  will
settle down into their normal order; but a regular army-inot militia or volunteers, who are
388 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
too expensive-of at least a hundred thousand
men of all arms, and a navy nearly as large as
that of England or France, will be needed as a
peace establishment.  The army of a hundred
thlousanld men must form a cadre of an army
of three times that number, which will be necessal,y to place the army on a war footing.
Less will answer neither for peace nor wal, for
the nation has, in spite of herself, to maintain
henceforth the rank of a first-class military
and maritime power, and take a leading part
in political movements of the civilized world,
and, to a great extent, hold in her hand the
peace of Europe.
Canning boasted that he had raised up the
New World to redress the balance of the Old:
a vain boast, for hle simply weakened Spain and
gave the hegemony of Europe to Russia, which
the Emperor of the French is trying, by
strengthening Italy and Spain, and by a French
protectorate in Mexico, to secure to France,
both in the Old World and the New-a magnificent dream, but not to be realized. His uncle
judged more wisely when he sold Louisiana,
left the New World to itself, and sought only to
secure to France the hegemony of the Old. But
the hegemony of the New World henceforth be.
longs to the United States, and she will have
389 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
a potent voice in adjusting the balance of power
even in Europe. To maintain this position,
which is imperative on her, she must always
have a large armed force, either on foot or in
reserve, which she can call out and put on a war
footing at short notice.   The  United States
must henceforth be a great military and naval
power, and the old hostility to a standing alrmy
and the old attempt to bring the military into
disrepute must be abandoned, and the country
yield to its destiny.
Of the several tendencies mentioned, the humanitarian tendency, egoistical at the South, detaching the individual from the race, and socialistic at the North, absorbing the individual in
the race, is the most dangerous. The egoistical
form is checked, sufficiently weakened by the
defeat of the rebels; but the social form believes that it has triumphed, and that individuals are effaced in society, and the Stales in the
Union. Against this, more especially should
public opinion and American statesmanship be
now directed, and territorial democracy and
the division of the powers of government be
asserted and vigorously maintained. The dan.
ger is that while this socialistic form of denlocracy is conscious of itself, the territorial de.
muocracy has not yet arrived, as the Germans
39 J
4 
POLITICAL TENDENCIES.
say, at self consciousness -  8elbsbewusstseynand operates only instinctively. All the dominant theories and sentimentalities are against
it, and it is only Providence that can sustain it.
391 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
CHAPTER XV.
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
IT has been said in the Introduction to this
essay that every living nation receives from
Providence a special work or mission in the
progress of society, to accompl)lish which is
its destiny, or the end for which it exists; and
that the special mission of the United States is
to continue and complete in the political order
the Grseco-Roman civilization.
Of all the states or colonies on this continent,
the American Republic alone has a destiny, or
the ability to add any thing to the civilization
of the race. Canada and the other British
Provinces, Mexico and  Central America,  Co!umbia and Brazil, and the rest of the South
American States, might be absorbed in the
United States without being missed by the civilized world. They represent no idea, and the
work of civilization could go on without them
as well as with them. If they keep up with
the progress of civilization, it is all that can be
expected of them.  France, England, Germany,
and Italy might absorb the rest of Europe, and
392 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
all Asi.a and Africa, without withdrawing a
single  laborer from the work  of advancing
the civilization of the race; and it is doubtful
if thlese nations themselves can severally or
jointly advance it much beyond the point
reached by the Roman Empire, except in abolishiing slavery and including in the political
people the whole territorial people.  They can
only develop and give a general application to
the fundamental principles of the Roman constitution. That indeed is much, but it adds no new
element nor new combination of pre-existing
elements.  But nothing of this can be said of
the United States.
In the Greco-Roman civilization is found the
state proper, and the great principle of the territorial constitution of power, instead of the
personal or the genealogical, the patriarchal or
the monarchical; and yet with true civil or political principles it mixed up nearly all the
elements of the barbaric constitution. The
gentile system of Rome recalls the patriarchal,
and the relation that subsisted between the
patron and his clients has a striking resemblance to that which subsists between the
feudal lord and his retainers, and may have
had the same origin. The three tribes, Ramnes,
Quirites, and Luceres, into which the Roman
393 
THlE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
people were divided before the rise of the
plebs, may have been, as Niebuhr contends,
local, not genealogical, in their origin, but they
were not strictly territorial distinctions, and the
division of each tribe into a hundred houses or
gentes was not local, but personal, if not, as the
name implies, genealogical. No doubt the individuals or families composing the house or
gens were not all of kindred blood, for the
Oriental custom of adoption, so frequent with
our North American Indians, and with all people distributed into tribes, septs, or clans, obtained with the Romans.  The adopted member
was considered a child of the house, and took
its name and inherited its goods. Whether, as
Niebuhr maintains, all the free gentiles of the
three tribes were called patres or patricians, or whether the term was restricted to the
heads of houses, it is certain that the head of
the house represented it in the senate, and the
vote in the curies was by houses, not by individuals en magse.  After all, practically the
Roman senate was hardly less an estate than
the English house of lords, for no one could
sit in it unless a landed proprietor and of noble
blood.   The  plebs, though  outside  of  the
political people proper, as not being included
in the three tribes, when they came to be a
394 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
power in the republic under the emperors, and
the old distinction of plebs and patricians was
forgotten, were an estate, and not a local or territorial people.
The republican element was in the fact that
the land, which gave the right to participate in
political power, was the domain of the statte,
and the tenant held it from the state. The
domain was vested in the state, not in the senator nor the prince, and was therefore regpubica,
not private property   the first grand leap of
the human race from barbarism. In all other
respects the Roman constitution was no more
republican than the feudal. Athens went
farther than Rome, and introduced the principle of territorial democracy. The division
into demes or wards, whence comes the word
demnocicey, was a real territorial division, not
personal nor genealogical. And if the equality
of all men was not recognized, all who were
included in the political class stood on the same
footing. Athens and other Greek cities, though
conquered by Rome, exerted after their conquest a powerful influence on Roman civilization, which became far more democratic under
the emperors than it had been under the patri.
cian senate, which the assassins of Julius Coesar,
and the superannuated conservative party they
395 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
represented, tried so hard to preserve. The
senate and the consulship were opened to the
representatives of the great plebeian houses, and
the provincials were clothed with the rights of
Roman citizens, and uniform laws were established throughout the empire.
The grand error, as has already been said, of
the Gaeo-Roman or gentile civilization, was
in its denial or ignorance of the unity of the
human race, as well as the Unity of God, and
in its including in the state only a particular
class of the territorial people, while it held all
the rest as slaves, though in different degrees
of servitude. It recognized and sustained a
privileged class, a ruling order; and if, as subsequently did the Venetian aristocracy, it reco,gnized democratic equality within that order,
it held all outside of it to be less than men and
without political rights.   Practically, power
was an attribute of birth and of private wealth.
Suffrage was almost universal among fleemen,
but down almost to the Empire, the people voted
by orders, and were counted, not numerically,
but by the rank of the order, and the conmitia
cu)-iatC could always carry the election over the
comitia cent6z(.ata, and thus power remained
always in the hands of the rich and noble few.
The Roman law, as digested by jurists under
396 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
Justinian in the sixth century, indeed, reeognizes the unity of the race, asserts the equality of
all men by the natural law, and undertakes to
defend slavery on principles not ineompatible
with that equality. it represents it as a commutation of the punishment of death, which the
emperor has the right to inflict on captives taken
in war, to perpetual servitude; and as servitude
is less severe than death, slavery was really a
proof of imperial clemency.  But it has never
yet been proved that the emperor has the right
under the natural law to put captives taken
even in a just war to death, and the RoIman
poet himself bids us "humlble the proud, but
spare the submissive." In a just war the emperor may kill on the battle.field those in aims
against him, but the juy gntiurn, as now interpreted by the jurisprudence of every civilized
nation, does not allow him to put them to death
after they have ceased resistance, have thrown
down their arms, and surrendered. But even
if it did, it gives him a right only over the persons captured, not over their innocent children,
and therefore no right to establish hereditary
slavery, for the child is not punishable for the offences of the parent. The law, indeed, assumed
that the captive ceased to exist as a person
and treated him as a thing, or mere property
oiji, 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
of the conqueror; and being property, he could
beget only property, which would accrue only
to his owner. But there is no power in heaven
or earth that can make a person a thing, a mere
piece of merchandise, and it is only by a clumsy
fiction, or rather by a bare-faced lie, that the
law denies the slave his personality and treats
him as a thing. If the unity of the race and
the brotherhood of all men had been clearly
seen and vividly felt, the law would never have
attempted to justify perpetual slavery on the
ground of its penal character, or indeed on any
ground whatever. All men are born under the
law of nature with equal rights, and the civil
law can justly deprive no man of his liberty,
but for a crime, committed by him personally,
that justly forfeits his liberty to society.
These defects of the Greco-Roman civilization the European nations have in part remedied, and may completely remedy. They can
carry out practically the Christian dogma of
the unity of the human race, abolish slavery in
every form, make all men equal before the law,
and the political people commensurate with the
territorial people. Indeed, France has already
done it. She has abolished slavery, villenage,
serfage, political aristocracy, asserted the equality of all men before the law, vindicated the
398 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
sovereignty of the people, and established universal suffrage, complete social and territorial
democracy. The other nations may do as much,
but hardly can any of them do more or advance
farther. Yet in France, territorial democracy
the most complete results only in establishing
the most complete imperial centralism, usually
called Cesarism.
The imperial constitution of France recognizes that the emperor reigns "by the grace
of God  and  the will of the  nation," and
therefore, that by the grace of God and the
will of the nation he may cease to reign; but
while he reigns he is supreme, and his will is
law. The constitution imposes no real or effective restraint on his power: while he sits upon
the throne he is practically France, and the
ministers are his clerks; the council of state,
the senate, and the legislative body are merely
his agents in governing the nation. This may,
indeed, be changed, but only to substitute
for imperial centralism democratic centralism,
which were no improvement, or to go back to
the system of antagonisms, checks and balances,
called constitutionalism, or parliamentary government, of which Great Britain is the model,
and which were a return toward barbarism, or
mediseval feudalism.
399 
T4TIE AMEPICAN REPUBLIC.
The hnuman race has its life in God, and tends
to realize in all orders the Divine Word or
Logos, which is logic itself, and the principle of
all conciliation, of the dialectic union of all
opposites or extremes. Mankind will be logi.
cal; and the worst of all tyrannies is that which
forbids them  to draw  from  their principles
their last logical consequences, or that prohibits
them the free explication and application of the
Divine Idea, in which consists their life, their
progress.  Such  tyranny strikes at the very
existence of society, and wars against the reality
of things. It is supremely sophistical, and its
success is death; for the universe in its constitution is supremely logical, and man, individually and socially, is rational.  God is the author
and type of all created things; and all creatures, each in its order, imitate or copies the
Divine Being, who is intrinsically Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, principle, medium, and end.
The Son or Word is the medium, which unites
the two extremes, whence God is living Goda real, active, living Being- living, concrete,
not abstract or dead unity, like the unity
of old Xenoplhanes, Plotinus, and Proclus. In
the Holy Trinity is the principle and pro.
totype of all society, and  whlat is called the
solidarity of the race is only the outward
400 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
expression, or copy in the external order, of
what theologians term the circumsession of the
three Divine Persons of the Godhead.
Now, human society, when it copies the Divine essence and nature either in the distinction
of persons alone, or in the unity alone, is sophistical, and wants the principle of all life and
reality. It sins against God, and must fail of
its end.  The English system, which is based
on antagonistic elements, on opposites, without
the middle term that conciliates them, unites
them, and makes them dialectically one, copies
the Divine model in its distinctions alone,
which, considered alone, are opposites or contraries. It denies, if Englishmen could but see
it, the unity of God.  The French, or imperial
system, which excludes the extremes, instead
of uniting them, denies all opposites, instead of
conciliating them -- denies the distinctions in
the model, and copies only the unity, which is
the supreme sophism called pantheism. The
English constitution has no middle term, and the
French no extremes, and each in its way denies
the Divine Trinity, the original basis and type
of the syllogism. The human race can be contented with neither, for neither allows it free
scope for its inherent life and activity. The
English system tends to pure individualism;
27
401 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
the French to pure socialism or despotism, each
endeavoring to suppress an element of the one
living and indissoluble TRUTH.
This is not fancy, is not fine.-spun speeculat ion, or cold and lifeless abstraction, but the
highest  theological  and philosophical  truth,
without which there were no reason, no man,
no society; for God is the first principle of all
being, all existence, all science, all life, and it is
in Him that we live and move and have our
being.  God is at the beginning, in the middle,
and at the end of all things-the universal
principle, medium, and end; and no truth can
be denied without His existence being directly
or indirectly impugned. In a deeper sense
than is commonly understood is it true that
ni,si  )ominu*  difcaveqit dom?,r,  in vanum
laborave)iunt quti ctdificant earn.  The English
constitution is composed of contradictory elements, incapable of reconciliation,  and each
element  is  perpetually struggling with  the
others for the mastery.  For a long time the
king labored, intrigued, and fought to free himself from the thraldom in which he was held
by the feudal barons; in 1688 the aristocracy
and people united and humbled the crown; and
now the people are at work seeking to sap both
the crown and the nobles.  The state is consti
402 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
tuted to nobody's satisfaction; and though all
may unite in boasting its excellences, all are at
work trying to alter or amend it.  The work
of constituting the state with the English is
ever beginning, never ending. Hence the eternal clamor for parliamentary reform..
Great Britain and other European states may
sweep away all that remains of feudalism, include the whole territorial people with the equal
rights of all in the state or political people, concede to birth and wealth no political rights, but
they will by so doing only establish either imperial centralism, as has been done in France, or
democratic centralism, clamored for, conspired
for, and fought for by the revolutionists of Europe. The special merit of the American system
is not in its democracy alone, as too many at
home and abroad imagine; but along with its
democracy in the division of the powers of
government, between a General government and
particular State governments, which are not antagonistic governments, for they act on different
matters, and neither is nor can be subordinated
to the other.
Now, this division of power, which decen.
tralizes the government without creating mu.
tually hostile forces, can hardly be introduced
into any European state. There may be a
403 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
union of states in Great Britain, in Germany,
in Italy, perhaps in Spain, and Austria is labor.
ing hard to effect it in her heterogeneous em.
pire; but the union possible in any of them is that
of a Bund or confederation, like the Swiss or
German Bund, similar to what the secessionists
in the United States so recently attempted  and
have so signally failed to establish.  An intelligent Confederate officer remarked that their
Confederacy had not been in operation three
months before it became evident that the principle on which it was founded, if not rejected,
would insure its defeat.  It was that principle
of State sovereignty, for which the States se.
ceded, more than the superior resources and
numbers of the Government, that caused the
collapse of the Confederacy.   The numbers
were relatively about equal, and the military
resources of the Confederacy were relatively not
much inferior to those of the Government. So
at least the Confederate leaders thought, and
they knew the material resources of the Government as well as their own, and had calculated
them with as much care and accuracy as any mnen
could. Foreign powers also, friendly as well
as unfriendly, felt certain that the secessionists
would gain their independence, and so did a
large part of the people even of the loyal States.
404 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
The failure is due to the disintegrating principle of State sovereignty, the very principle of
the Confederacy.  The war has proved that
united states are, other things being equal, an
overmatch for confederated states.
The European states must unite either as
equals or as unequals. As equals, the union can
be only a confederacy, a sort of Zollverein, in
which each state retains its individual sovereignty; if as unequals, then some one among
them will aspire to the hegemony, and you
have over again the Athenian Confederation,
formed at the conclusion of the Persian war, and
its fate. A union like the American cannot be
created by a compact, or by the exercise of supreme power.   The Emperor of the French
cannot erect the several Departments of France
into states, and divide the powers of government between them as individual and as
united states. They would necessarily hold
from the imperial government, which, though
it might exercise a large part of its functions
through them, would remain, as now, the supreme
central government, from which all governmental powers emanate, as our President is apparent.
ly attempting, in his reconstruction policy, to
make the government of the United States. The
elements of a state constituted like the American
-4 05 
THiE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
do not exist in any European nation, nor in the
constitution of European society; and the
American constitution would have been impracticable even here had not Providence so ordered it that the nation was born with it, and
has never known any other.
Rome recognized the necessity of the federal
principle, and applied it in the best way she
could. At first it was a single tribe or people dis.
tributed into distinct gentes or houses; after the
Sabine war, a second tribe was added on terms
of equality, and the state was dual, composed
of tw\o tribes, the Ramnes and the Tities or
Quirites, and, afterward, in the time of Tullus
Hostilius, were added the Lucertes or Luceres,
making the division into three ruling tribes,
each divided into one hundred houses or gentes.
Each house in each tribe was represented by its
chief or decurion in the senate, making, the number of senators exactly three hundred, at which
number the senate was fixed. Subsequently was
added, by Ancus, the plebs, who remained without authority or share in the government of the
city of Rome itself, though they might aspire to the first rank in the allied cities. The
division into tribes, and the division of the
tribes into gentes or houses, and the vote in the
state by tribes, and in the tribes by houses, ef
406 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
fectually excluded democratic centralism; but
the division was not a division of the powers
of governmient between two co-ordinate governments, for the senate had supreme control,
like the British parliament, over all matters,
general and particular.
The establishment, after the secession of the
plebs, of the tribunitial veto, which gave the
plebeians a negative power in the state, there
was an incipient division of the powers of govern tlet; but only a division between the positive and negative powers, not between the general and the particular. The power accorded to
the plebs, or commons, as Niebuhr calls themwho is, perhaps, too fond of explaining the early
constitution of Rome by analogies borrowed
from feudalism, and especially from the constitution of his native Ditmarsch-was simply an
obstructive power; and when it, by development,
became a positive power, it absorbed all the
powers of government, and created the Empire.
There was, indeed, a nearer approach to the
division of powers in the American system,
between imperial Rome and her allied or confederated municipalities.  These municipalities,
modelled chiefly after that of Rome, were elective, and had the management of their own local
affairs; but their local powers were not co-ordi
407 
TLE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
nate in their own sphere with those exercised
by the Roman municipality, but subordinate
and dependent.  The senate had the supreme
power over them, and they held their rights
subject to its will. They were formally, or
virtually, subjugated states, to which the Roman
senate, and afterward thle Romalnl emperors,
left the form of the state and the mere shadow
of fi'eedom.  Rome owed much to her affecting
to treat them as allies rather than as subjects,
and at first these municipal organizations secured
the progress of civilization in the provinces;
but at a later period, under the emperors, they
served only the imperial treasury, and were
crushed by the taxes imposed and the contributions leviel on them bly the fiscal agents of the
empire. So heavy were the fiscal burdens imposed on the burgesses, if the term  may  be
used, that it needed an imperial edict to compel
them to enter the municipal government; and
it became, under the later emperors, no uncommon thing for free citizens to sell themselves
into slavery, to escape the fiscal burdens imposed. There are actually imperial edicts extant forbidding freemen to sell themselves as
slaves. Thus ended the Roman federative system, and it is difficult to discover in Europe
the elements of a federative system that could
have a more favorable result.
408
i
I
i
II 
DESTINY-POLITIC:L AND RELIGIOUS.
Now, the political destiny or mission of the
United States is, in common with the European
nations, to eliminate the barbaric elements retained by the Roman constitution, and specially
to realize that philosophical division of the
powers of government which distinguish it from
both imperial and democratic centralism on the
one hand, and, on the other, from the checks and
balances or organized antagonisms which seek to
preserve liberty by obstructing the exercise of
power. No greater problem in statesmanship
remains to be solved, and no greater contribution
to civilization to be made. Nowhere else than in
this New World, and in this New World only
in the United States, can this problem be solved,
or this contribution be made, and what the
Greco-Roman republic began be completed.
But the United States have a religious as
well as a political destiny, for religion and
politics go together.  Church and state, as gov.
ernments, are separate indeed, but the princi.
ples oil which the state is founded have their
origin and ground in the spiritual order-in
the principles revealed or affirmed by religionand are inseparable-from them. There is no
state without God, any more than there is a
church without Christ or the Incarnation. An
atheist,nay be a politician, but if there were
18
409 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
no God there could be no politics. Theological
principles are the basis of political principles.
The created universe is a dialectic whole, distinct but inseparable from its Creator, and all
its parts cohere and are essential to one an.
other. All has its origin and prototype in the
Triune God, and throughout expresses unity in
triplicity and triplicity in unity, without which
there is no real being and no actual or possible
life. Every thing has its principle, medium, and
end.   Natural society is initial, civil government is medial, the church is teleological, but
the three are only distinctions in one indissoluble whole.
Man, as we have seen, lives by communion
with God through the Divine creative act, and
is perfected or completed only through the
Incarnation, in Christ, the Word made flesh.
True, he communes with God through his kind,
and through external nature, society in which
he is born and reared, and property through
which he derives sustenance for his body; but
these are only media of his communion with
God, the source of life-not either the begin
ning or the end of his communion. They have
no life in themselves, since their being is in
God, and, of themselves, can impart none. They
are in the order of second causes, and second
410
I
I
I
I
I 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
causes, without the first cause, are nought.
Communion  which  stol  with  them, which
takes them as the principle and end, instead of
media, as they are, is the communion of death,
not of life. As religion includes all that relates to communion with God, it must in some
form be inseparable from every living act of
man, both individually and socially; and, in the
long run, men must conform either their politics to their religion or their religion to their
politics. Christianity is constantly at work,
rmoulcling political society in its own image and
likeness, and every political system struggles to
harmonize Christianity with itself. If, then,
the United States have a political destiny, they
have a religious destiny inseparable from it.
The political destiny of the United States is
to conform the state to the order of reality, or,
so to speak, to the Divine Idea in creation.
Their religious destiny is to render practicable
and to realize the normal relations between
church and state, religion and politics, as concreted in the life of the nation.
In politics, the United States are not realizing
a political theory of any sort whatever. They,
on the contrary, are successfully refuting all
political theories, making  away  with  them,
and establishing the state-not on a theory, not
1%
411 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
on anl artificial basis or a foundation laid by
human reason or will, but on reality, the eter.
nal and immutable principles in relation  to
which man is created.   They are doing  the
same in regard to religious theories. Religion
is not a theory, a subjective view, an opin.
ion, but is, objectively, at once a principle, a
lavw, and a fact, and, subjectively, it is, bythe
the aid of God's grace, practical conformity to
what is universally true and real. The United
States, in fulfilment of their destiny, are making
as sad havoc with religious theories as with political theories, and are pressing on with irresistible force to the real or the Divine order
which is expressed in the Christian mysteries, which exists independent of man's understanding and will, and which man can neither
make nor unmake.
The religious destiny of the United States
is not to create a new religion nor to found a
new church.  All real religion is catholic, and is
neither new nor old, but is always and every.
where true. Even our Lord came neither to
found a new church nor to create a new religion,
but to do the things which had been foretold,
and to fulfil in time what had been determined
in eternity. Godcl has himself founded the
church on catholic principles, or principles al.
re
412
i
I
i
kI 
0
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
ways and everywhere real principles. His
church is necessarily catholic, because founded
on catholic dogmas, and the dogmas are catholic, because they are universal and immutable principles, having their origin and ground
in the Divine Being Himself, or in the creative act by which He produces and sustains
all things. Founded on universal and inmmutable principles, the church can never grow
old or obsolete, but is the church for all times
and places, for all ranks and conditions of
men.   Man  cannot change either the church
or the dogmas of faith, for they are founded
in the highest reality, which is above him,
over him, and independent of him. Religion
is above and independent of the state, and the
state has nothing to do with the church or her
dogmas, but to accept and conform to them as
it does to any of the facts or principles of
science, to a mathematical truth, or to a physi
cal law.
But while the church, with her essential con.
stitution, and her dogmas are founded in the
Divine order, and are catholic and unalterable,
the relations between the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities may be changed or modified by the
changes of time and place.   These relations
have not been always the same, but have dif
413 
THE AMIERICAN REPUBLIC.
fered in different ages and countries.  During
the first three centuries of our era the church
had no legal statu., and was either connived at
or persecuted by the state. Under the Christian emperors she was recognized by the civil
law; her prelates had exclusive jurisdiction in
mixed civil and ecclesiastical questions, and
were made, in some sense, civil magistrates, and
paid as such by the empire. Under feudalism,
the prelates received investiture as princes and
barons, and formed alone, or in connection with
the temporal lords, an estate in the kingdom.
The Pope became a temporal prince and suzerain, at one time, of a large part of Europe, and
exercised the arbitratorship in all grave ques.
tions between Christian sovereigns themselves,
and between them and their subjects.  Since
the downfall of feudalism and the establishment of modern centralized monarchy, the
church has been robbed of the greater part
of her temporal possessions, and deprived, in
most  countries, of all  civil functions,  and
treated by the state either as an enemy or as a
slave.
In all the sectarian and schismatic states of
the Old World, the national church is held in
strict subjection to the civil authority, as in
Great Britain and Russia, and is the slave of
414
I
t
i
I
i
I
II
I
i
I
I
i 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND,ELIGIOUS.
the state; in the other states of Europe, as
France, Austria, Spain, and Italy, she is treated
with distrust by the civil government, and allowed hardly a shadow of freedom and independence.  In France, which has the proud title
of eldest daughter of the church, Catholics, as
such, are not freer than they are in Turkey.
All religious are said to be free, and all are free,
except the religion of the majority of Frenchllen.  The emperor, because nominally a Catholic, takes it upon himself to concede the church
just as much and just as little freedom in the
empire as he judges expedient for his own secular interests. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, MIexico, and the Central and South American states,
the policy of the civil authorities is the same,
or worse.  It may be safely asserted that, except in the United States, the church is either
held by the civil power in subjection, or treated
as an enemy.  The relation is not that of union
and harmony, but that of antagonism, to the
grave detriment of both religion and civilization.
It is impossible, even if it were desirable, to
restore the mixture of civil and ecclesiastical
governments which obtained in the Middle
Ages; and a total separation of church and
state, even as corporations, would, in the pres
415 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLI(C.
ent state of men's minds in Europe, be construed, if approved by the church, into a sanction by her of political atheism, or the right
of the civil power to govern according to its
own will and pleasure in utter disregard of the
law of God, the moral order, or the immutable
distinctions between right and wrong. It could
only favor the absolutism of the state, and put
the temporal in the place of the spiritual.
Hence, the Hloly Father includes the proposition of the entire separation of church and state
in the Syllabus of Errors condemned in his
Encyclical, dated at Rome, December 8, 1864.
Neither the state nor the people, elsewhere than
in the United States, can understand practically
such separation in any other sense than the
complete emancipation of our entire secular
life from the law of God, or the Divine order,
which is the real order. It is not the union of
church and state-that is, the union, or identity
rather, of religious and political principles-that
it is desirable to get rid of, but the disunion or
antagonism of church and state. But this is
nowhere possible out of the United States; for
nowhere else is the state organized on catholic
principles, or capable of acting, when acting
from its own constitution, in harmony with a
ieally catholic church, or the religious order
416
Ik
i
k
i
i
I
t 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
really existing, in relation to which all things
are created and governed. Nowhere else is it
practicable, at present, to maintain between the
two powers their normal relations.
But what is not practicable in the Old
World is perfectly practicable in the New.
Tie state here being organized in accordance
with catholic principles, there can be no antagonism between it and the church. Though operating in different spheres, both are, in their
respective spheres, developing and applying to
practical life the one and the same Divine Idea.
The church can trust the state, and the state
can trust the church. Both act from the same
principle to one and the same end.  Each by
its own constitution co-operates with, aids, and
completes the other. It is true the church is
not formally established as the civil law of the
land, nor is it necessary that she should be; because there is nothing in the state that conflicts
with her freedom and independence, with her
dogmas or her irreformable canons.  The need
of establishing the church by law, and protecting her by legal pains and penalties, as is still
done in most countries, can exist only in a
barbarous or semi-barbarous state of society,
where the state is not organized on catholic
principles, or the civilization is based on false
18*
417 
THE AMERICAN REPUTBLIC.
principles, and in its development tends not to
the real or Divine order of things. When the
state is constituted in harmony with that order,
it is carried onward by the force of its own
internal  constitution  in a catholic direction,
and a church establishment, or what is called Estate religion, would be an anomaly, or a superfluity.  The true religion is in the heart of the
state, as its informing principle and real interior
life. The external establishment, by legal enactment of the church, would afford her no additional protection, add nothing to her power
and efficacy, and effect nothing for faith or piety-neither of which can be forced, because both
must, from their nature, be free-will offerings to
God.
In the United States, false religions are legally
as free as the true religion; but all false religions being one-sided, sophistical, and uncatholic, are opposed by the principles of the state,
which tend, by their silent but effective workings, to eliminate them. The American state
recognizes only the catholic religion. It eschews
all sectarianism, and none of the sects have
been able to get their peculiarities incorporated
into its constitution or its laws. The state conforms to what each holds that is catholic, that
is always and everywhere religion; and what
l
a
4L
418 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
ever is not catholic it leaves, as outside of its
province, to live or die, according to its own inherent vitality or want of vitality. The state
conscience is catholic, not sectarian; hence it is
that the utmost freedom can be allowed to all
religions, the false as well as the true; for the
state, being  catholic in its constitution,  can
never suffer the adherents of the false to oppress
the consciences of the adherents of the true.
The church being free, and the state harmonizing with her, catholicity has, in the freedom
of both, all the protection it needs, all the security it can ask, and all the support it can, in
the nature of the case, receive from external
institutions, or frowm social and political organizations.
This freedom may not be universally wise or
prudent, for all nations may not be prepared
for it: all may not have attained their majority.
The church, as well as the state, must deal with
men and nations as they are, not as they are not.
To deal with a child as with an adult, or with a
barbarous nation as with a civilized nation, would
be only acting a lie.   The church cannot treat
men as free men where they are not free men, nor
appeal to reason in those in whom reason is undeveloped. She must adapt her discipline to the
age, condition, and culture of individuals, and
419 
TIHE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
to the greater or less progress of nations iil
civilization. She herself remains always the
same in her constitution, her authority, and her
faith; but varies her discipline with the variations of time and place. Many of her canons,
very proper and necessary in one age, cease to
be so in another, and many which are needed
in the Old World would be out of place in the
New World. Under the American system, she
can deal with the people as free men, and trust
them as freemen, because free men they are.
The freeman asks, why? and the reason why
must be given him, or his obedience fails to be
secured. The simple reason that the church
commands will rarely satisfy him; he would
know why she commands this or that. The
full-grown free man revolts at blind obedience,
and he regards all obedience as in some measure blind for which he sees only an extrinsic
command. Blind obedience even to the authority of the church cannot be expected of
the people reared under the American system,
not because they are filled with the spirit of
disobedience, but because they insist that obedience shall be )ationabile obgequiumn, an act
of the understanding, not of the will or the
affections alone. They are trained to demand
a reason for the command given them, to dis
420
I
I
I 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
tinguish between the law and the person of
the magistrate. They can obey God, but not
man, and they must see that the command
given has its reason in the Divine order, or the
intrinsic catholic reason of things, or they will
not yield it a full, entire, and hearty obedience.  The reason that suffices for the child
does not suffice for the adult, and the reason
that suffices for barbarians does not suffice
for civilized men, or that suffices for nations
in the infancy of their civilization does not
suffice for them in its maturity.   The appeal
to external authority was much less frequent
under the Roman Empire than in the barbarous
ages that followed its downfall, when the
church became mixed up with the state.
This trait of the American character is not
uncatholic.   An  intelligent, free, willing obedience, yielded from personal conviction, after
seeing its reasonableness, its justice, its logic
in the Divine orderi —the obedience of a free
man, not of a slave- is far more consonant to the
spirit of the church, and far more acceptable to
God, than simple, blind obedience; and a peo.
ple capable of yielding it stand far higher in
the scale of civilization than the people that
must be governed as children or barbarians. It
is possible that the people of the Old World
421 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
are not prepared for the regimen of fieedom in
religion any more than they are prepared for
freedom in politics; for they have been trained
only to obey external authority, and are not
accustomed to look on religion as having its
reason in the real order, or in the reason of
things. They understand no reason for obedience beyond the external command, and do
not believe it possible to give or to understand
the reason why the command itself is given.
They regard the authority of the church as a
thing apart, and see no way by which faith and
reason can be harmonized.   They look upon
them as antagonistic forces rather than as in.
tegral elements of one and the same whole. Concede them the regimen of freedom, and their
religion has no support but in their good-will,
their affections, their associations, their habits,
and their prejudices. It has no root in their
rational convictions, and when they begin to
reason they begin to doubt. This is not the
state of things that is desirable, but it cannot be remedied under the political re'ime
established  elsewhere  than  in  the  United
States. In every state in the world, except the
American, the civil constitution is sophistical,
and violates, more or less, the logic of things;
and, therefore, in no one of them can the peo
422
I 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
ple receive a thoroughly dialectic training, or
an education in strict conformity to the real
order. Hlence, in them all, the church is more
or less obstructed in her operations, and prevented from carrying out in its fulness her own
Divine Idea.   She does the best she can in
the circumstances and with the materials with
which she is supplied, and exerts herself continually to bring individuals and nations into
harmony with her Divine law;  but still her
life in the midst of the nations is a struiggle, a
warfare.
The United States being dialectically constituted, and founded on real catholic, not sectarian or sophistical principles, presents none of
these obstacles, and must, in their progressive
development or realization of their political
idea, put an end to this warfare, in so far as a
warfare between church and state, and leave
the church in her normal position in society, in
which she can, without let or hindrance, exert
her firee spirit, and teach and govern men by
the Divine law as free men. She may encounter
unbelief, misbelief, ignorance, and indifference
in few, or in many; but these, deriving no support from tihe state, which tends constantly to
eliminate thien, must gradually give way before
her invincible logic, her divine charity, the
423
i
I 
THE AMIERICAN PREPUBLIC.
truth and reality of things, and the intelligence,
activity, and zeal of her ministers. The American people are, on the surface, sectarians or indifferentists; but they are, in reality, less uncatholic than the people of any other country, because they are, in their intellectual and moral
development, nearer to the real order, or, in the
higher and broader sense of the word,  more
truly civilized.   The multitude of sects that
obtain may excite religious compassion for those
who are carried away by them, for men can be
saved or attain to their eternal destiny only Tby
truth, or conformity to Him who said, "I am
the way, the truth, and the life;" but in relationil to the national destiny they need excite
no alarm, no uneasiness, for underlying them all
is more or less of catholic truth, and  the vital
forces of the national life repel them, in so far
as they are sectarian and not catholic, as substances that cannot be assimilated to the national life.  The American state being catholic
in its organic principles, as is all real religion,
and the church being free, whatever is anticatholic, or uncatholic, is without any support
in either, and having none, either in reality or
in itself, it must necessarily fall and gradually
disappear.
The sects themselves have a half unavowed
424
I
I
i
a 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
conviction that they cannot subsist forever as
sects, if unsupported by the civil authority.
They are free, but do not feel safe in the United
States. They Iknow the real church is catholic,
and that they themselves are none of them
catholic. The most daring among them even
pretends to be no more than a "branch" of
the catholic church.  They know that only the
catholic church can withstand the pressure of
events and  survive the shocks of time, and
hence everywhere their movements to get rid
of their sectarianism  and to gain a catholic
character. They hold conventions of delegates
firom the whole sectarian world, form "unions,"
"alliances,"  and  "associations;" but, unhap.
pily for their success, the catholic church does
not originate in convention, but is founded by
the Word made flesh, and sustained by the in.
dwelling Holy Ghost. The most they can do,
even with the best dispositions in the world,
is to create a confederation, and confederated
sects are something very different from a church
inherently one and catholic. It is no more the
catholic church than the late Southern Confed.
eracy was the American state. The sectarian
combinations may do some harm, may injure
many souls, and retard, for a time, the progress
of civilization; but in a state organized in ac
425 
THIE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
cordance with catholic principles, and left to
themselves, they are powerless against the national destiny, and must soon wither and die
as branches severed from the vine.
Such being the case, no sensible Catholic can
imagine that the church needs any physical
force against the sects, except to repel actual
violence, and protect her in that fieelomi oh
speech and possession which is the right of all
before the state.  What are called religious establishlments are needed only where either the
state is barbarous or the religion is sectarian.
Where the state, in its intrinsic constitution, is
in accordance with catholic principles, as in the
United States, the church has all she needs or
can receive. The state can add nothing more
to her power or her security in her moral and
spiritual warfare with sectarianism, and any
attempt to give her more would only weaken
her as against the sects, place her in a false
light, partially justify their hostility to her, ren der effective their declamations against her,
mix her up unnecessarily with political changes,
interests, and passions, and distract the atten tion of her ministers from their proper work
as churchmen, and impose on them the duties
of politicians and statesmen. Where there is
nothing in the state hostile to the church,
426
i
i
1.
I 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
where she is free to act according to her own
constitution and laws, and exercise her own
dliscipline on her own spiritual subjects, civil
enactments in her favor or against the sects
may embarrass or impede her operations, but
cannot aid her, for she can advance no farther
than she wins the heart and convinces the understanlding. A spiritual work can, in the
nature of things, be effected only by spiritual
means. The church wants freedom in relation
to the state- nothing more; for all her power
comes immediately from God, without any intervention or mediation of the state.
The United States, constituted  ini accordance with the real order of things, and founded
on principles which have their origin and
ground in the principles on which the church
herself is founded, can never establish any
one of the sects as the religion of the state,
for that would violate their political constitution, and array all the other sects, as well
as the church herself, against the government.
They cannot be called upon to establish the
church by law, because she is already in their
constitution as far as the state has in itself
any relation with religion, and because to
establish her in any other sense would be to
make her one of the civil institutions of the
427
I 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
land, and to bring her under the control of the
state, which were equally against her interest
and her nature.
The religious mission of the United States is
not then to establish the church by external law,
or to protect her by legal disabilities, pains, and
penalties against the sects, however uncatholic
they may be; but to maintain catholic fireedom,
neither absorbing the state in the church nor the
church in the state, but leaving each to move
freely, according to its own nature, in the sphere
assigned it in the eternal order of things. Their
mission separates church and state as external
governing bodies, but unites them in the interior
principles from which each derives its vitality
and force. Their union is in the intrinsic unity
of principle, and in the fact that, though moving
in different spheres, each obeys one and the
same Divine law.  With this the Catholic, who
knows what Catholicity means, is of course satisfied, for it gives the church all the advantage
over the sects of the real over the unreal; and
with this the sects have no right to be dissatisfled, for it subjects them to no disadvantage not
inherent in sectarianism itself in presence of
Catho]icity, and without any support from the
civil authority.
The effect of this mission of our country fully
428
I 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
realized, would be to harmonize church and
state, religion and politics, not by absorbing
either ill the other, or by obliterating the natural
distinction between them, but by conforming
both to the real or Divine order, which is su.
preme and immutable.  It places the two powers in their normal relation, which has hitherto
never been done, because hitherto there never
has been a state normally constituted. The
nearest approach made to the realization of the
proper relations of church and state, prior to
the birth of the American Republic, was in the
Roman Empire under the Christian emperors;
but the state had been perverted by paganism,
and the emperors, inheriting the old pontifical
power, could never be made to understand
their own  incompetency in spirituals, and persisted to the last in treating the church as a
civil institution under their supervision and control, as does the Emperor of the French in
France, even yet. In the Middle Ages the state
was so barbarously constituted that the church
was obliged to supervise its administration,
to mix herself up with the civil government,
in order to infuse some intelligence into civil
matters, and to preserve her own rightful free
dom and independence. When the states broke
away from feudalism, they revived the Roman
429 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
constitution, and claimed the authority in ecclesiastical matters that had been exercised by
the Roman Cesars, and the states that adopted
a sectarian religion gave the sect adopted a civil
establishment, and subjected it to the civil government, to which the sect not unwillingly consented, on condition that the civil authority excluded the church and all other sects, and made
it the exclusive religion of the state, as in England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, and
the states of Northern Germnany. Even yet the
normal relations of church and state are nowhere
practicable in the Old World; for everywhere
either the state is more or less barbaric in its
constitution, or the religion is sectarian, and the
church as well as civilization is obliged to
struggle with antagonistic forces, for self-preservation.
There are formidable parties all over Europe
at work to introduce what they take to be the
American system; but constitutions are generated, not made-Providential, not conventional.
Statesmen can only develop what is in the existing constitutions of their respective countries, and no European constitution contains all
the elements of the American. European Liberals mistake the American system, and, were
they to succeed in their efforts, would  not in
430
a 
DESTINY —POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
troduce it, but something more hostile to it
than the governments and institutions they are
warring  against.  They start from narrow, sectarian, or infidel premises, and seek not freedom
of worship, but freedom of denial.  They suppress the fieedom of religion as the means of
securing what they call religious liberty-imagine that they secure freedom of thought by
extinguishing  the  light  without which  no
thLought is possible, and advance civilization by
undermining its foundation.  The  condemnatioi of their views and movements by the Holy
Father in the Encyclical, which has excited so
much hostility, may  seem to superficial  and
unthinking Americans even, as a condemnation
of our American system-indeed, as the condetonation of modern science, intelligence, and
civilization itself; but whoever looks below
the surface, has some insight into the course of
events, understands the propositions and moveinents censured, and the sense in which they
are censured, is well assured that the Holy
Father has simply exercised his pastoral and
teaching authority to save  religion, society,
science, and civilization from utter corruption
or destruction.   The opinions, tendencies, and
movements, directly or by implication censured,
are the effect of narrow and superficial think
431 
THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
ing, of partial and one-sided views, and are sectarian, sophistical, and hostile to all real progress,
and tend, as far as they go, to throw society
back into the barbarism from which, after centuries of toil and struggle, it is just beginning to
emerge. The Holy Father has condemned nothing that real philosophy, real science does not
also condemn; nothing, in fact, that is not at war
with the LAmerican system itself.  For the mass
of the people, it were desirable that fuller explanations should be given of the sense in which
the various propositions censured are condemned, for some of them are not, in every sense,
false; but the explanations needed were expected
by the Holy Father to be given by the bishops
and prelates, to whom, not to the people, save
through them, the Encyclical was addressed.
Little is to be hoped, and much is to be feared,
for liberty, science, and civilization from European Liberalism, which  has  no  real affinity
with American territorial democracy and real
civil and religious freedom. But God and reality are present in the Old World as well as
in the New, and it will never do to restrict
their power or freedom.
Whether the American people will prove
faithful to their mission, and realize their destiny, or not, is known only to Him from whom
432
1 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
nothing is hidden. Providence is free, and
leaves always a space for human free-will. The
American people can fail, and will fail if they
neglect the appointed means and conditions of
success; but there is nothing in their present
state or in their past history to render their
failure probable. They have in their internal
constitution what Rome wanted, and they are
in no danger of being crushed by exterior barbarism.   Their success as feeble colonies of
Great Britain in achieving their national independence, and especially in maintaining, unaided, and against the real hostility of Great
Britain and France, their national unity and integrity against a rebellion which, probably, no
other people could have survived, gives reasonable assurance for their future. The leaders of the
rebellion, than whom none better knew or more
nicely calculated the strength and resources of
the Union, counted with certainty on success,
and the ablest, the most experienced, and bestinformed statesmen of the Old World felt sure
that the Republic was gone, and spoke of it as
the acte United States.  Not a few, even in the
loyal States, who had no sympathy with the
rebellion, believed it idle to think of suppressing it by force, and advised peace on the best
terms that could be obtained.  But Ilium fuit
29
433 
THEE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
was chanted too soon; the American people
wvere equal to the emergency, and falsified the
calculations and predictions of their enemies,
and surpassed the expectations of their friends.
The attitude offthe real American people during the fearful struggle affords additional confidence in their destiny. With larger armies on foot
than Napoleon ever commanded, with their line
of battle stretching from ocean to ocean, across
the whole breadth of the continent, they never,
during four long years of alternate victories and
defeats-and both unprecedentedly bloodyfor a moment lost their equanimity, or appeared
less calm, collected, tranquil, than in the ordinary times of peace. They not for a moment
interrupted their ordinary routine of business
or pleasure, or seemed conscious of being engaged in any serious struggle which required
an effort. There was no hurry, no bustle, no
excitement, no fear, no misgiving. They seemed to regard the war as a mere bagatelle, not
worth being in earnest about. The on-looker
was almost angry with their apparent indifference, apparent insensibility, and doubted if
they moved at all. Yet move they did: guided
by an unerring instinct, they moved quietly on
with an elemental force, in spite of a timid and
hesitating administration, in spite of inexpe
434
a
lt 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
rienced, over-cautious, incompetent, or blundering military commanders, whom  they gently
brushed aside, and desisted not till their object
was gained, and they saw the flag of the Union
floating anew in the breeze from the capitol of
every State that dared secede.  No man could
contemplate them without feeling that there
was in them a latent power vastly superior to
any which they judged it necessary to put
forth. Their success proves to all that what,
prior to the war, was treated as American arrogance or self-conceit, was only the outspoken
confidence in thei.r destiny as a Providential
people, conscious that to them is reserved the
hegemony of the world.
Count de Maistre predicted early in the century the failure of the UJnited States, because
they have no proper name; but his prediction
assumed what is not the fact. The United States
have a proper name by which all the world knows
and calls them. The proper name of the country
is America: that of the people is Americans.
Speak of Americans simply, and nobody understands you to mean the people of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, but everybody
understands you to mean the people of the
United  States.   The fact is significant, and
foretells for the people of the United States a
435
I
i
r
I
i
14 
THE  AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
continental destiny, as is also foreshadowed in
the so-called "Monroe doctrine," which France,
during our domestic troubles, was permitted,
on condition of not intervening in our civil
war in favor of the rebellion, to violate.
There was no statesmanship in proclaiming
the "Monroe doctrine," for the statesman keeps
always, as far as possible, his government free
to act according to the exigencies of the case
when it comes up, unembarrassed by previous
declarations of principles.   Yet the doctrine
only expresses the destiny of the American
people, and which nothing but their own fault
can prevent them from realizing in its own
good time.  Napoleon will not succeed in his
Mexican policy, and Mexico will add some fifteen or twenty new States to the American
Union as soon as it is clearly for the interests
of all parties that it should be done, and it can
be done by mutual consent, without war or
violence. The Union will fight to maintain the
integrity of her domain and the supremacy of
her laws within it, but she can never, consist.
ently with her principles or her interests, enter
upon a career of war and conquest. Her system is violated, endangered, not extended, by
subjugating her neighbors, for subjugation and
liberty go not together.  Annexation, when it
{
I
436 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
takes place, must be on terms of perfect equality, and by the free act of the state annexed.
The Union can admit of no inequality of rights
and franchises between the States of which it
is composed. The Canadian Provinces and the
Mexican and Central American States, when
annexed, must be as free as the original States
of the Union, sharing alike in the power and
the protection of the Republic-alike in its
authority, its freedom, its grandeur, and its
glory, as one free, independent, self-governing
people. They may gain much, but must lose
nothing by annexation.
The Emperor Napoleon and his very respectable prote'e', Maximilian, an able man and a
liberal-minded prince, can change nothing in the
destiny of the United States, or of Mexico herself; no imperial government can be permanent beside the American Republic, no longer
liable, since the abolition of slavery, to be distracted by sectiona] dissensions.  rThe States
that seceded will soon, in some way, be restored
to..their rights and franchises in' the Union,
foriming not the least patriotic.porton of the
American people; the negro question will be
settled, or settle itself, as is most likely, by the
melting away of the negro population before
the influx of white laborers; all traces of the
)
*
437
-1
I
I
I 
TtIE AMEIIRICAN REPUBLIC.
late contest in- a9 very few years will be wipe(
out, the nationlal debt paid, or greatly reduced,
and the prosperity and strength of the Repub.
lie be greater than ever. Its moral force will
swveep away every imperial throne on the continent, without any effort or action on the part
of the government. There can be no stable
government in Mexico till every trace of the
ecclesiastical policy established by the Council
of the Indies is obliterated, and the church
placed there on the same footing as in the
United States; and that can hardly be done
without annexation.  Maximilian cannot divest
the church of her temporal possessions, and
place Protestants and Catholics on the same
footing, without offending the present church
party and deeply injuring religion, and that
too without winning the confidence of the republican party. In all Spanish and Portuguese
America the relations between the church and
state are abnormal, and exceedingly hurtful to
both. Religion is in a wretched condition, and
politics in a worse condition still. There is
no effectual remedy for either but in religious
freedom, now impracticable, and to be rendered
practicable by no European intervention, for
that subjects religion to the state, the very
source of the evils that now exist, instead of
1
I
438 
DESTINY-POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.
emancipating it fromn the state, and leaving it
to act according to its own constitution and
laws, as under the American system.
But the American people need not trouble
themselves about their exterior expansion.
That will come of itself as fast as desirable.
Let them devote their attention to their inter
nal destiny, to the realization of their mission
within, and they will gradually see the whole
continent coming under their system, forming
one grand nation, a really catholic nation, great,
glorious, and free.
THE END.
\(
439 
I 
1