This book is included in the US Government: Educational, Informational & Motivational section.
Dangers of Our Republic We propose in this little pamphlet to explain, in several points, the philosophy of the system of government which our fathers framed for us, and also to show- how its essential and vital provisions may be evaded, perverted and destroyed. And the manner and esteem in which the provisions, about which we shall speak presently, shall be held and treated by the American people, in the crises which are now upon us, and which must be determined in a few months, so far as to give direction to future events, will, in our opinion, either preserve or ruin our whole political fabric. Every Government must have fundamental principles upon which it must stand or fall. And when these fundamental principles, embodied in the form of government, do not correspond with the principles upon which the inhabitants of the country who can influence politics act and proceed, the government is already virtually subverted, and in a short time anarchy and a new system will follow. Two sets of principles, therefore, must be investigated, viz : the principles of the Government as expressed in its Constitution, if it have one, and in the manner of making and executing its laws; and also the principles which are impelling those who can give direction to the political events of the country. If these two sets of principles be in harmony with each other, the politics of the country may be said to be healthy, and the Government to be stable; but if they are discordant, serious disorders in the body politic may be expected, and fatal consequences may follow. All governments, indeed, must necessarily undergo modifications, as the impelling principles of society conflict with the constitution and laws. But there are certain limits beyond which society cannot go, and no further modifications be made without destroying the government itself. Bad governments have been modified and swept away by the impelling principles of society, and unfortunately good governments are not exempt from a like fate. And if we would reason a priori respecting events before us in America, we must look to these two sets of principles: Many of the governmental principles with us have been settled by a written constitution, and by the adjudication of a high, and in former years at least, a pure tribunal established expressly for that purpose. Whether the impelling principles of the people of the United States are in harmony with the governmental principles, however, is a question, though we think not a very difficult one; as it is admitted on all hands that our Government has undergone and is still undergoing modifications. And how far this process is to proceed can only be determined by examining the force and tendency of those principles in human nature, which are driving us along. And when and where this force shall expend itself, or whether it will increase in momentum, as well as the goal at which it will eventually land us, are questions that can only be determined upon the principles of human nature, as we find them actually existing in the individuals of our political society. Forces can only be estimated and tendencies appreciated by principles derived from actual observation or experience. And the only sure guide we can have to test the validity of any principle which we may have drawn from human nature is, that old one the experience of the past. We take man's nature, morally, intellectually, religiously, socially and politically, to be the same to-day that it always has been heretofore. Like causes will produce like effects upon like subjects all the world over. Were it not so, no one could guess the condition of a people an hour hence, or be able to devise any government and laws, which would anticipate and be sufficient for the ordinary contingencies of society. A knowledge of the laws of human nature, therefore, must necessarily precede that of government, with every one who would judge of the utility or durability of governments. For, from the very nature of man, the ordinary and continually repeated history of the past, may be expected to proceed far into the future. The establishment of any and every government presupposes a repetition of history. In the Bible we read that the first man that was born killed the second one, and murders have occurred ever since. No government would provide laws to prevent or punish arson, were not incendiaries anticipated. Men have rights, and they may be wronged. And to protect men in their rights, to secure their lives, their health, their property, their reputation, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness, our fathers justly concluded that governments are or ought to be instituted. These familiar principles, founded in nature, are easily understood. But when we carry our minds away from the ordinary contingencies, for which governments ought to provide, and look into the principles of government itself, we too often fail to find in human nature the true principles upon which all those governments, which were intended to be benefactions to mankind, must be conducted. This, we are compelled to say, for we believe it, is the case now to a great degree in our land, respecting our own beneficient institutions. The system of government which our fathers established, we claim, contains a philosophy, which, unfortunately, in our opinion, has been obscured by political aspirants. This philosophy itself is complicated, and may with ease, by the demagogue, be wrongfully applied to men's passion for liberty, and thus lead them blindly on to fatal precipices. And in order to make ourselves understood, and to exhibit the points which we propose to discuss, we must first clear the way, that the reader may be able to see and mark our steps The discussion must necessarily be argumentative, and we shall be compelled to deal in some degree with details and elementary principles, the knowledge of which the reader must be supposed to possess, or of which he must inform himself. We will give our views in general principles, and without partizan feeling, and without fear, favor or expectation from anybody. And in the first place, taking up the first set of principles, of which we have spoken in the beginning, let us consider for a moment who the persons are that are really governed by positive institutions, and what it is that governs them. An institution which does not in any manner control men's actions, cannot with any propriety be said to govern them. In an absolute monarchy, in which a certain person dictates whatever regulations he may see fit, that monarch certainly is not the subject of any civil government. If he follow and regulate his conduct by any rules at all, they are only such as he himself has prescribed for himself. And if he conscientiously and rigidly follow those rules, and they be humane and good, he may then indeed be said to be under a moral government; but his actions are not at all in any manner controlled by any positive institution of his country. And wherever such a government exists among men, it exists not to be governed, but to govern. And there is in every government on earth an ungovernable something somewhere which governs. And that ungovernable something, and those persons whose actions are controlled by it, constitute the government and the governed. Now, the ancients tell us, that among men only three simple forms of government can exist, viz: an absolute monarchy, in which the will of the monarch is the government; an oligarchy, in which a few powerful individuals bound together by like tastes, sympathies and interests, prescribe those rules of action which may seem agreeable to themselves, for the people to observe; and a pure republic, in which the will of the majority decides all points in controversy, and forces its decisions upon the the minority. Every form of government known to man, they tell us, may be resolved into one or the other of these simple forms; or else it is an admixture or blending together of the three or two of them. And in each of these simple forms, the principle respecting the government and the governed is exactly the same. When the will of the monarch changes, then the regulations of the monarchy immediately change; when the oligarchs take other notions, then the oligarchy assumes a different shape; and when the majority adopt new opinions, then new regulations are established in the republic. And it matters not whether the governed be affected by such changes or not, they must submit. The government and the governed, in each of these three simple forms, are distinctly marked out in the same manner. And each of these simple forms contains an elementary ungovernable principle of government, and the three together contain all the elementary principles, which we find to exist in any government. And civil liberty, the liberty of individuals, or, to use Blackstone's definition, which is approved by the learned in such matters, "natural liberty so far restrained, but no farther than is necessary for the good of the public," never has, and, from the very nature of man, never can exist in either of these simple forms. They are, each of them, absolute tyrannies, of which monarchy is the least oppressive. In modern times neither of these simple forms exist among the Caucasian race. Russia, perhaps, comes nearest to a despotism, though pure monarchy is now confined to the Asiatics and Africans. Keeping these elementary principles of government in view, let us now carry our thoughts to England, the government of which most nearly resembles our own, and in which the liberty of the subject has been better cared for than in any other government of Europe, and in that government we shall find all the three simple elements of government spoken of, blended together. The Crown, being a pure monarchy; the Lords, spiritual and temporal, being an oligarchy; and the Commons a republic. Within certain monarchial limits the Crown is absolute, it being one of the corner-stones of their political edifice that "the king can do no wrong." He is not amenable at all for any political or private act, to any law or power in the kingdom. He cannot even be questioned respecting his actions. And although Charles Rex was actually tried, condemned and executed, there is no intelligent Englishman but that will say it was done contrary to the letter and spirit of the British Constitution. It was violence, and not law. There is nothing whatever in the British Constitution that looks in the slightest degree towards governing the king; that is, towards making the king a subject. But lest a bad man thus situated might do infinite mischief to the people, there are certain regulations thrown around him, not indeed to affect in any manner his person, not to make him do any positive act, which he may not wish to do, but to keep his hands off the liberty of the subjects. And these regulations have been won for the most part by the sword, from the prerogative which once approached almost to despotism with the English Crown. For this purpose of protecting the subject is the provision, that the king shall do his political acts by an agent or minister, and that this minister shall be held responsible for his acts; and he may be tried, condemned and executed for them, and in such trial he shall not be permitted to plead in defense the command of the king. If, therefore, the king command him to do an an act not warranted by the laws, he shall not, indeed, disobey, and remain his minister; but his safety is to resign and cease to be the agent of the Crown. The king, also, shall not suspend the writ of habeas corpus, without the Lords and Commons in Parliament advising him to do so. The Commons, also, may refuse to furnish money to enable the king to accomplish any injurious measure, which he may contemplate, and so on. But all these regulations respecting the executive power are not instruments put into the hands of the Lords or Commons, or both together, by which they may make the king a subject of civil government, but they are instruments which shall be used to prevent the Crown from governing improperly. In the mixed government of England, therefore, the Crown is, within certain limits, a true representative of an absolute monarchy; one of the simple elements of government, that of monarchy, is found in it. If, now, we take a view of the House of Lords, we shall readily determine that it is a true representative of an oligarchy. The Lords only have the privilege by birth of being called to be the advisers of the king. And in more remote times, when the sessions of Parliament were less frequent, the Peers frequently met in convention to consider the state of the realm, and to inform and advise the Crown. A Peer, individually, also, has the right to submit respectfully any information which he may deem of importance to the Crown. A Peer charged with treason or felony, or of misprision of treason or felony, can be tried only by his Peers, if he so request. And although the persons of Peers may be attached, in order to make them obey the orders of the Court, they cannot be arrested in any civil suit upon the complaint or showing of anybody. A Peer answers an action at law or bill in equity, not upon his oath, but upon his honor. And as a witness he need not take an oath in any case, except when before the high Court of Parliament. He cannot lose his nobility, except by death or attainder, and he has various other legal exemptions. And his social privileges and moral influence in society are still greater than his civil powers. All this certainly looks like oligarchy, and what else is it ? Within a certain sphere it is a complete oligarchy. A Peer, to be sure, cannot with impunity deprive a commoner of his life, his liberty, his property, or his reputation. But he himself is independent of the smiles or frowns of anybody except his Peers. He looks only to his Peers and the Crown for promotion of any kind. The House of Commons is intended to represent only the purely democratic element in the British Constitution, and to a considerable degree it is a democracy; though it has not heretofore represented a pure republic, so well as the Crown has represented a monarchy, and the Peers an oligarchy. The democratic element, however, is gaining strength every day in England. And, upon the whole, the British Constitution is really a blending together of the three simple elements of government, so often mentioned by political philosophers. And in England, that ungovernable and absolute power which is contained in each of these simple elements, and which must exist somewhere in every government, can exert itself only by the agreement of these three elements. Now, the keeping of these three elements each in its proper orbit, is what the British statesmen call the balance of the English Constitution, the aegis of freedom, the paladium of English liberty, and so on. And this aegis or paladium, they tell us, is preserved by two efficient causes and arrangements : First, by the distribution of different powers to each of those elements in Parliament, so that the legitimate action of one, if tending to produce mischief, may be opposed by the legitimate action of another, or the other two; and second, by the different interests of each of these elements, and of the persons intrusted with their management. The latter consideration, the different interests, seems to me to me to be the foundation of all that is valuable in the former. For although a certain set of men may have instruments placed in their hands to prevent another set from doing wrong, yet where the design is not opposed to their wishes, they will never use them. And the fulcrum upon which their wishes turn will generally be interest. History is full of the quarrels between an aristocracy and their king, between the people and an aristocracy, and between the people and the king. To get rid of an odious aristocracy, the people have frequently joined with the king; again the aristocracy and the people have united and humbled the king; and then again they have separated and warred with each other. This is the history of the internal affairs of the governments of Europe, and these conflicting interests and wishes, according to writers, are made to work in harmony by the British Constitution. We have thus endeavored to bring to view the simple elements of government, and to refer to their blending in the English Government. That Government, in appearance, and in some respects in fact, resembles our own; so much so that it might be supposed, if we should discard a few names, pompous shows and parades, the two governments would be substantially the same ; but that is a mistake, they are very different. Now the English Government is a matter of history; it has endured for several centuries, and passed through fiery trials, and our own in part has been taken from it; we may, therefore, use it, not only to bring the principles of our Government into clear view, but also to gain important information by the contrasts, the similarities, and the identities. End of Preview.
RETURN to Main Titles Index or US Government: Educational, Informational & Motivational
Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2012, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All
Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572