Part 13

Foremost is the Equality of All Men. Of course, in a declaration of rights, no such supreme folly was intended as that all men are created equal in form or capacity, bodily or mental,--but simply that they are created equal in rights. This is grandest of the self-evident truths announced, leading and governing all the rest. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among inalienable rights; but they are all in subordination to that primal truth. Here is the starting-point of the whole; and the end is like the starting-point. Announcing that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, the Declaration repeats the same proclamation of Equal Rights. Thus is Equality the Alpha and the Omega, wherein all other rights are embraced. Men may not have a natural right to certain things, but most clearly they have a natural right to _impartial laws_, without which justice, being the end and aim of government, must fail. Equality in rights is the first of rights. Because these self-evident truths, beginning with Equality, had been set at nought by Great Britain, in her relations with our fathers, Independence was declared. To these truths, therefore, was the new Government solemnly dedicated, as it assumed its separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. Do you ask for the definition of Republic? Here it is, by patriot lexicographers, whose authority none of us can question.

As the War of Independence began with a declaration of principles, so it ended with a like declaration. At its successful close, the Continental Congress, in an Address to the States, by the pen of James Madison, thus announced the objects for which it had been waged, and thus supplied another definition of the new government:--

“Let it be remembered that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, _that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature_. By the blessing of the Author of these rights on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and _form the basis_ of thirteen independent States. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the _unadulterated forms of Republican Government_ can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view, the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society.”[124]

Such, also, was the sublime sentiment promulgated by Washington from his camp, in a general order, near the same date, announcing the close of the war, where he declares his “rapture” in the national prospects, and the three-fold happiness for all “who have assisted in protecting _the rights of human nature_.”[125] It was for “the rights of human nature” that our fathers went forth to battle, and these rights are proclaimed to “form the basis of thirteen independent States.” But supreme among these is Equality, including of course the equal right of all to a voice in the Government. And this is the Republic which our fathers, with pride and boast, then gave as an example to mankind.

The same spirit appears in the National Constitution, which, by its preamble, asserts practically similar sentiments:--

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, _establish justice_, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus was the National Constitution ordained, not to create an oligarchy or aristocracy, not to exclude certain persons from the pale of its privileges, not to organize _inequality of rights_ in any form, but to “establish justice,” which is Equality,--to “insure domestic tranquillity,” which is vain without justice,--to “provide for the common defence,” which is the defence of all,--to “promote the general welfare,” which is the welfare of all,--and to “secure the blessings of liberty” to all the people and their posterity, which is giving to all the complete enjoyment of rights central among which is Equality. Here, then, is another authoritative definition.

Thus has our country testified to its idea of a Republic, not only throughout long days of controversy, but in national declarations, being in themselves monumental acts.

* * * * *

3. From these national declarations I come now to the _Opinions of the Fathers_. Here you see how these same principles have been sustained by eminent characters, whose names are historic, all testifying to the government they founded and upheld. In their weighty words you find a definition, constantly repeated, in harmony with all the promises of the Fathers, whether in controversy or in solemn instruments which are the very title-deeds of the Republic.

* * * * *

I begin with Benjamin Franklin, who saw all questions of Government with a surer instinct than any other person in our history. As early as 1736, while still a young man, he wrote an article, which was published in the Pennsylvania Gazette, containing these words:--

“Popular Governments have not been framed without the wisest reasons. It seemed highly fitting that the conduct of magistrates, _created by and for the good of the whole_, should be made liable to the inspection and animadversion of _the whole_.”[126]

It is for _the good of the whole_, and not for an odious oligarchy or an aristocratic class, that our patriot speaks, and in these words is foreshadowed the idea of a republican government. But it was in discussions, after Otis had hurled his flaming bolt, that we find a fuller and more precise definition. Here it is, as adopted, if not written, by Franklin:--

“That _every man_ of the commonalty (excepting infants, insane persons, and criminals) is, of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty.

“_That liberty, or freedom, consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who frame the laws_, and who are to be the guardians of every man’s life, property, and peace: for the _all_ of one man is as dear to him as the _all_ of another; and the poor man has an _equal_ right, but _more_ need, to have representatives in the Legislature than the rich one.

“That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives _do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes, and to their representatives_: for to be enslaved is to have governors whom _other men have set over us_, and be subject to laws _made by the representatives of others_, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in _our_ behalf.”[127]

In these emphatic words is a complete vindication of the _equal right_ of representation, as essential to free government,--so much so, that, where this does not exist, Liberty does not exist.

Jefferson followed Franklin in the same vein, but with greater fervor. The author of the Declaration of Independence could not do otherwise. Constantly he testifies to his idea of a Republic. Thus he wrote to Alexander von Humboldt, under date of June 13, 1817, affirming the rights of the majority as “the first principle of Republicanism,” and assuming the principle of Equal Rights:--

“The first principle of Republicanism is, that the _lex majoris partis_ is the fundamental law of every society of individuals _of equal rights_. To consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.”[128]

In another letter, to John Taylor, of Caroline, dated May 28, 1816, he thus defines a Republic:--

“Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the term _Republic_ is of very vague application in every language. Witness the self-styled Republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Poland. Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say, purely and simply, it means _a government by its citizens in mass_, acting directly and personally, _according to rules established by the majority_,--and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens.”[129]

Here again, while confessing the unquestionable vagueness of the term according to old examples, he assumes that in a republic all citizens must have a voice. And again, in the same letter, he thus indignantly condemns denial of representation:--

“And also that one half of our brethren who fight and pay taxes are excluded, like Helots, from the rights of representation, as if society were instituted for the soil, and not for the men inhabiting it, _or one half of these could dispose of the rights and the will of the other half without their consent_.”[130]

Thus did he scout the whole wretched pretension of oligarchy and monopoly by which citizens are deprived of equal rights.

To these may be added his earliest and latest declarations on this important question. The earliest is in his “Notes on Virginia,” written in 1781, where he recognizes “a reciprocation of right” as a presiding principle:--

“When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give _a reciprocation of right_: that without this they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience.”[131]

The latest declaration was in 1826, the year of his death. It is in a paper containing some of his most intimate opinions. Here he bears testimony to “_equality_ among our citizens” as “essential to the maintenance of republican government.”[132] These are among his dying words.

* * * * *

Madison was colder in nature than Jefferson; but they were associates in opinion, as in political life. In the debates on the National Constitution the former condemned the denial of rights on account of color:--

“We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[133]

Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he uses the following language:--

“_The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of republican government_, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgment of this right has been the mode in which _aristocracies_ have been built on the ruins of popular forms.”[134]

Thus declaring himself against “aristocracies,” he naturally recognized the true idea; and here he was perplexed by the question of a property qualification, and the effort to reconcile it with “the right of suffrage,” which he calls “a fundamental article in republican constitutions.”[135] In another place, he says of “confining the right of suffrage to freeholders”: “It violates _the vital principle_ of free government, that those who are to be bound by laws ought to have a voice in making them; and the violation would be more strikingly unjust as the lawmakers become the minority.”[136] Completely recognizing the great American principle, that just government can stand only on “the consent of the governed,” he is brought to this conclusion:--

“Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them.”[137]

In one of the most remarkable chapters of the “Federalist,” Madison gives expansion to this idea in his formal definition of a Republic:--

“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a Republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, _a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people_, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. _It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion_, OR A FAVORED CLASS OF IT: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of Republic.”[138]

Thus, in few significant words, does this authority teach that a Republic is a government derived from “the great body of the people,” and not from “a favored class of it.” Better words could not be found for the American definition.

I repeat these two conditions of republican government according to Madison: _First_, the government must be derived from the _great body_ of the people; and, _secondly_, it cannot spring from any _favored class_.

That the colored race should not be excluded from this definition may be justly inferred from his remark, already quoted, that “where Slavery exists the _republican_ theory becomes still more fallacious,”[139] and also from his correspondence at a later day with Lafayette, whose devotion to the great principle of Equal Rights was blazoned before the world. Writing to the latter, November 25, 1820, he said:--

“The Constitutions and laws of the different States are much at variance in the civic character given to free persons of color: those of most of the States, not excepting such as have abolished Slavery, imposing _various disqualifications_, which _degrade_ them from the rank and rights of white persons. _All these perplexities develop more and more the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade._”[140]

“Various disqualifications which degrade them”; “dreadful fruitfulness”: such are some of the terms in which judgment is recorded. Another letter, also to Lafayette, written as late as February 1, 1830, says:--

“Outlets for the freed blacks are alone wanted for a rapid erasure of the blot [of Slavery] from our _Republican character_.”[141]

Thus, in his opinion, was the treatment of this unhappy people inconsistent with the “Republican character.”

* * * * *

Hamilton follows with perhaps equal authority. Though approaching political questions from opposite points of view, we find him uniting with Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the definition he would supply:--

“As long as offices are _open to all men_ and _no constitutional rank_ is established, it is pure republicanism.”[142]

Not for an oligarchy, but for _all_, is a Republic created. Then again he testifies for Equal Rights, and against _partial distinctions_:--

“There can be no truer principle than this, that _every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of Government_.… We propose _a free government_. Can it be so, if _partial distinctions_ are maintained?”[143]

Again he says, in positive words:--

“A share in the sovereignty of the State, which is exercised by the citizens at large in voting at elections, is one of the most important rights of the subject, _and in a Republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law_. It is that right by which we exist a free people.”[144]

He then exhibits the crowning lesson:--

“The principles of the Revolution taught the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting their liberty, or, in other words, _their right to a share in the government_. That portion of the sovereignty to which each individual is entitled can never be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought and bled.”[145]

More could not be said in the few words. But it is when Hamilton comes to consider the National Constitution and to expound its provisions, that, while recognizing the anomalous condition of Slavery, and exposing what he calls “the compromising expedient of the Constitution” by which “_the slave_ is divested of two fifths of _the man_,” he yet declares “the equal level of free inhabitants,” and announces, “that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, _the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants_.” Here is this important text,--which has additional authority when it is considered that it was attributed also to Madison, and indeed claimed by him, who thus acknowledged the sentiments as his own:--

“It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied to them in the computation of numbers; AND IT IS ADMITTED, THAT, IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS.”[146]

Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are restored to the rights which have been taken away,--in other words, if they become freemen,--they will be on the same _equal level_, and entitled to the same _equal share_ of representation with the other inhabitants. The two ideas of Equality and a Right to Representation, so early and constantly avowed by the Fathers, are here again recognized as essential conditions of government; and this is the true definition of a Republic.

With these great representative names to illustrate the American idea I might close the catalogue. Surely this is sufficient. But there are others, whose authority cannot be disregarded.

* * * * *

Here is the testimony of that inflexible spirit, who had thought and acted much, Samuel Adams, in a letter to his kinsman, John Adams:--

“That the sovereignty _resides in the people_ is a political doctrine which I have never heard an American politician seriously deny.… _We, the people_, is the style of the Federal Constitution. They adopted it; and, conformably to it, they delegate the exercise of the powers of government to particular persons, who, after short intervals, resign their powers _to the people_, and they will reëlect them, or appoint others, as they think fit.”[147]

Here also is the testimony of another Republican, who signed the Declaration of Independence, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John Adams:--

“What especially denominates it a _Republic_ is its dependence on the _public_ or _people at large_, without any hereditary powers. But it is not of so much importance by what appellation the government is distinguished as to have it well constituted _to secure the rights and advance the happiness of the community_.”[148]

There also was John Adams himself, who was the least distinct of all the Fathers on this question; but we find in the Preface to his Defence of the American Constitutions a passage full of prophetic meaning:--

“Thirteen governments, thus founded on _the natural authority of the people alone_, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of _the rights of mankind_.”[149]

Here is a plain assertion that our Thirteen States were founded “on the natural authority of the people alone,” and that they were destined to spread over all North America.

Charles Pinckney, in a speech on the adoption of the Constitution, speaks for South Carolina:--

“The doctrine of representation is the fundamental of a republic.… As to the United Netherlands, it is such a confusion of states and assemblies, that I have always been at loss what species of government to term it. According to my idea of the word, it is not a republic; for I conceive it as indispensable in a republic that all authority should flow from the people.… A republic is _where the people at large_, either collectively or by representation, form the Legislature.”[150]

Luther Martin, an able representative of Maryland in the Convention, while vindicating a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves, said:--

“The privilege of importing them was unreasonable; and it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.”[151]

Afterwards, in his address to the Legislature of Maryland, he announced that both in the Committee and in the Convention he was influenced by the argument,--

“that Slavery is inconsistent with _the genius of republicanism_, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, _as it lessens the sense of the Equal Rights of mankind_, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.”[152]

Thus was a “sense of the Equal Rights of mankind” one of the principles on which Republicanism rested.

And here is one more word from Virginia: it is Colonel Mason, who always spoke with so much point:--

“The true idea, in his opinion, was, that _every man_, having evidence of attachment to and permanent common interest with the society, ought to share in all its rights and privileges.”[153]

Again we have a plain recognition of the Revolutionary idea.

* * * * *

Here, also, is another authority. I quote a Virginia writer on Government,--John Taylor, of Caroline:--

“The end of the guaranty is ‘a republican form of government.’ The meaning of this expression is not so unsettled here as in other countries, because we agree in one descriptive character as essential to the existence of a republican form of government. _This is representation. We do not admit a government to be even in its origin republican, unless it is instituted by representation_; nor do we allow it to be so, unless its legislation is also founded upon representation.”[154]

I close this array, illustrative of opinion, with the words of Daniel Webster, in harmony with the rest:--

“Now, fellow-citizens, I will venture to state, in a few words, what I take these American political principles in substance to be. They consist, as I think, in the first place, in the establishment of popular governments on the basis of representation.… _This representation is to be made as equal as circumstances will allow._”[155]

Then again, on another occasion, he said:--

“This is the true idea of a State. It is an organized government, representing _the collected will of the people_, as far as they see fit to invest that government with power.”[156]

Thus, at every stage, from the opening, when Otis announced the master principle, “Taxation without representation is Tyranny,” all along to Daniel Webster, we find “Representation” an essential element in the American definition of republican government.

* * * * *

4. From authoritative opinions I pass to _public acts_, which testify to the true idea of republican government. These are of two classes: first, by the United States, in their collective character; and, secondly, by the States individually.

* * * * *