aimed at the members must give a fatal wound to the head; and the destruction of the States must be at once a political suicide. But imagine, for a moment, that a political frenzy should seize the Governmant; suppose they should make the attempt. Certainly, Sir, it would be forever impracticable. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by reason and experience. It has been proved that the members of Republics have been, and ever will be, stronger than the head. Let us attend to one general historical example. In the ancient feudal Governments of Europe, there were, in the first place, a Monarch; subordinate to him, a body of Nobles; and subject to these, the vassals, or the whole body of the People. The authority of the Kings was limited, and that of the Barons considerably independent. The histories of the feudal wars exhibit little more than a series of successful encroachments on the prerogatives of Monarchy. Here, Sir, is one great proof of the superiority which the members in limited Governments possess over their head. As long as the Barons enjoyed the confidence and attachment of the People, they had the strength of the country on their side, and were irresistible. I may be told in some instances the Barons were overcome; but how did this happen? Sir, they took advantage of the depression of the royal authority, and the establishment of their own power, to oppress and tyrannize over their vassals. As commerce enlarged, and wealth and civilization increased, the People began to feel their own weight and consequence; they grew tired of their oppressions; united their strength with that of their Prince, and threw off the yoke of Aristocracy. These very instances prove what I contend for. They prove that in whatever direction the popular weight leans, the current of power will flow; whatever the popular attachments be, there will rest the political superiority. Sir, can it be supposed that the State Governments will become the oppressors of the People? Will they forfeit their affections? Will they combine to destroy the liberties and happiness of their fellow-citizens, for the sole purpose of involving themselves in ruin? God forbid! The idea, Sir, is shocking! It outrages every feeling of humanity, and every dictate of common sense! 137. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.-Alexander Hamilton. AFTER all our doubts, our suspicions and speculations, on the subject of Government, we must return, at last, to this important truth, that, when we have formed a Constitution upon free principles, when we have given a proper balance to the different branches of Administration, and fixed Representation upon pure and equal principles, we may, with safety, furnish it with all the powers necessary to answer, in the most ample manner, the purposes of Government. The great desiderata are a free Representation, and mutual checks. When these are obtained, all our apprehensions of the extent of powers are unjust and imaginary. What, then, is the structure of this Constitu tion? One branch of the Legislature is to be elected by the People, -by the same People who choose your State Representatives. Its members are to hold their office two years, and then return to their constituents. Here, Sir, the People govern. Here they act by their immediate Representatives. You have also a Senate, constituted by your State Legislatures, by men in whom you place the highest confidence, and forming another Representative branch. Then, again, you have an Executive Magistrate, created by a form of election which merits universal admiration. In the form of this Government, and in the mode of Legislation, you find all the checks which the greatest politicians and the best writers have ever conceived. What more can reasonable men desire? Is there any one branch in which the whole Legislative and Executive powers are lodged? No! The Legislative authority is lodged in three distinct branches, properly balanced; the Executive authority is divided between two branches; and the Judicial is still reserved for an independent body, who hold their office during good behavior. This organization is so complex, so skilfully contrived, that it is next to impossible that an impolitic or wicked measure should pass the great scrutiny with success. Now, what do Gentlemen mean, by coming forward and declaiming against this Government? Why do they say we ought to limit its powers, to disable it, and to destroy its capacity of blessing the People? Has philosophy suggested, has experience taught, that such a Government ought not to be trusted with everything necessary for the good of society? Sir, when you have divided and nicely balanced the departments of Government; when you have strongly connected the virtue of your rulers with their interests; when, in short, you have rendered your system as perfect as human forms can you must place confidence; you must give power. be, 138. ARISTOCRACY, 1788. — Robert R. Livingston. Born, 1748; died, 1813. THE gentleman, who has so copiously declaimed against all declamation, has pointed his artillery against the rich and great. We are told that, in every country, there is a natural Aristocracy, and that this Aristocracy consists of the rich and the great. Nay, the gentleman goes further, and ranks in this class of men the wise, the learned, and those eminent for their talents or great virtues. Does a man possess the confidence of his fellow-citizens, for having done them important services? He is an Aristocrat! Has he great integrity? He is an Aristocrat! Indeed, to determine that one is an Aristocrat, we need only to be assured that he is a man of merit. But I hope we have many such. So sensible am I of that gentleman's talents, integrity, and virtue, that we might at once hail him the first of the Nobles, the very Prince of the Senate! But whom, in the name of common sense, would the gentleman have to represent us? Not the rich, for they are sheer Aristocrats. Not the learned, the wise, the virtuous; for they are all Aristocrats. Whom then? Why, those who are not virtuous; those who are not wise; those who are not learned; these are the men to whom alone we can trust our liberties! He says, further, we ought not to choose Aristocrats, because the People will not have confidence in them! That is to say, the People will not have confidence in those who best deserve and most possess their confidence! He would have his Government composed of other classes of men. Where will he find them? Why, he must go forth into the highways, and pick up the rogue and the robber. He must go to the hedges and the ditches, and bring in the poor, the blind, and the lame. As the gentleman has thus settled the definition of Aristocracy, I trust that no man will think it a term of reproach; for who, among us, would not be wise? who would not be virtuous? who would not be above want? The truth is, in these Republican Governments, we know no such ideal distinctions. We are all equally Aristocrats. Offices, emoluments, honors, the roads to preferment and to wealth, are alike open to all. 139. EXTENT OF COUNTRY NO BAR TO UNION.-Edmund Randolph. Died, 1813. In the Virginia Convention on the Federal Constitution, 1788. EXTENT of country, in my conception, ought to be no bar to the adoption of a good Government. No extent on earth seems to me too great, provided the laws be wisely made and executed. The principles of representation and responsibility may pervade a large, as well as a small territory; and tyranny is as easily introduced into a small as into a large district. Union, Mr. Chairman, is the rock of our salvation. Our safety, our political happiness, our existence, depend on the Union of these States. Without Union, the People of this and the other States will undergo the unspeakable calamities which discord, faction, turbulence, war and bloodshed, have continually produced in other countries. Without Union, we throw away all those blessings for which we have so earnestly fought. Without Union, there is no peace, Sir, in the land. The American spirit ought to be mixed with American pride, pride to see the Union magnificently triumph. Let that glorious pride which once defied the British thunder reanimate you again. Let it not be recorded of Americans, that, after having performed the most gallant exploits, after having overcome the most astonishing difficulties, and after having gained the admiration of the world by their incomparable valor and policy, they lost their acquired reputation, lost their national consequence and happiness, by their own indiscretion. Let no future historian inform posterity that Americans wanted wisdom and virtue to concur in any regular, efficient Government. Catch the present moment. Seize it with avidity. It may be lost, never to be regained; and, if the Union be lost now, I fear it will remain so forever! 140. FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES.-George Washington. B. 1732; d. 1799. Reply, as President of the United States, January 1st, 1796, to the address of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic, on his presenting the colors of France to the United States. - BORN, Sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to secure its permanent establishment in my own country, my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best wishes, are irresistibly excited, whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed Nation unfurl the banners of freedom. But, above all, the events of the French Revolution have produced the deepest solicitude, as well as the highest admiration. To call your Nation brave, were to pronounce but common praise. Wonderful People! Ages to come will read with astonishment the history of your brilliant exploits! I rejoice that the period of your toils and of your immense sacrifices is approaching. I rejoice that the interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have issued in the formation of a Constitution designed to give permanency to the great object for which you have contended. I rejoice that liberty, which you have so long embraced with enthusiasm, liberty, of which you have been the invincible defenders,- now finds an asylum in the bosom of a regularly organized Government; a Government, which, being formed to secure the happiness of the French People, corresponds with the ardent wishes of my heart, while it gratifies the pride of every citizen of the United States, by its resemblance to his own. On these glorious events, accept, Sir, my sincere congratulations. In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own feelings only, but those of my fellow-citizens, in relation to the commencement, the progress, and the issue, of the French Revolution; and they will cordially join with me in purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of our sister Republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy in peace that liberty which they have purchased at so great a price, and all the happiness which liberty can bestow. I receive, Sir, with lively sensibility, the symbol of the triumphs and of the enfranchisement of your Nation, the colors of France, which you have now presented to the United States. The transaction will be announced to Congress; and the colors will be deposited with those archives of the United States which are at once the evidences and the memorials of their freedom and independence. May these be perpetual! And may the friendship of the two Republics be commensurate with their existence ! 141. AGAINST FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS, 1796.-George Washington. AGAINST the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free People ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one Nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil, and even second, the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the People, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detatched and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient Government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent Nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand on foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? 142. SANCTITY OF TREATIES, 1796.-Fisher Ames. Fisher Ames, one of the most eloquent of American Statesmen and writers, was born in Dedham, Massachusetts, 1758, and died July 4, 1808. He was a member of Congress during the eight years of Washington's administration, of which he was the earnest and able champion. We are either to execute this treaty, or break our faith. То ехраtiate on the value of public faith may pass with some men for declamation to such men I have nothing to say. To others, I will urge, can any circumstance mark upon a People more turpitude and debasement? Can anything tend more to make men think themselves mean, or to degrade to a lower point their estimation of virtue, and their standard of action? It would not merely demoralize mankind; it tends to break all the ligaments of society; to dissolve that mysterious charm which attracts individuals to the Nation; and to inspire, in its stead, a repulsive sense of shame and disgust. |