M. Tocqueville says—"The laws of the United States are extremely favourable to the division of property; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws prevents property from being divided to excess. [See Note 3.] This is very perceptible in the States which are beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is the most populous part of the Union, but it contains only eighty inhabitants to the square mile, which is much less than in France, where a hundred and sixty-two are reckoned to the same extent of country. But in Massachusetts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes the land, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law has abolished the rights of primogeniture, but circumstances have concurred to re-establish it under a form of which none can complain, and by which no just rights are impaired."

And Chancellor Kent, in his "Treatise upon American Law," observes—"It cannot be doubted that the division of landed estates must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that each parcel of land is insufficient to support a family but these disadvantages have never been felt in the United States, and many generations must elapse before they can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, to prevent the parcelling out of estates."

There is, therefore, no want of preparation for an aristocracy in America, and, although at present the rich are so much in the minority that they cannot coalesce, such will not be the case, perhaps, in twenty or thirty years; they have but to rally and make a stand when they become more numerous and powerful, and they have every chance of success. The fact is that an aristocracy is absolutely necessary for America, both politically and morally, if the Americans wish their institutions to hold together, for if some stop is not put to the rapidly advancing power of the people, anarchy must be the result. I do not mean an aristocracy of title; I mean such an aristocracy of talent and power which wealth will give—an aristocracy which shall lead society and purify it. How is this to be obtained in a democracy?— simply by purchase. In a country where the suffrage is confined to certain classes, as in England, such purchase is not to be obtained, as the people who have the right of suffrage are not poor enough to be bought; but in a country like America, where the suffrage is universal, the people will eventually sell their birth-right; and if by such means an aristocratical government is elected, it will be able to amend the constitution, and pass what laws it pleases. This may appear visionary, but it has been proved already that it can be done, and if it can be done now, how much more easily will it be accomplished when the population has quadrupled, and the division commences between the rich and the poor. I say it has been done already, for it was done at the last New York election. The democratic party made sure of success: but a large sum of money was brought into play, and the whole of the committees of the democratic party were bought over, and the Whigs carried the day.

The greatest security for the duration of the present institutions of the United States is the establishment of an aristocracy. It is the third power which was intended to act, but which has been destroyed and is now wanting. Let the senate be aristocratical—let the congress be partially so, and then what would be the American government of president, senate, and congress, but mutato nomine, king, lords, and commons?

I cannot perhaps find a better opportunity than here of pointing out what ought to be made known to the English, as it has done more harm to the American aristocracy than may be imagined. I refer to the carelessness and facility with which letters of introduction to this country are given, and particularly by the American authorities. I have drawn the character of Bennett, the editor of the Morning Herald of New York, and there is not a respectable American but will acknowledge that my sketch of him is correct; will it not surprise the English readers when I inform them that this man obtained admittance to Westminster Hall at the Coronation, and was seated among the proudest and purest of our nobility!! Such was the fact. But it will be as well to revert back a little to what has passed.

During the time that England was at war with nearly the whole of Europe, the Americans were to a great degree isolated and unknown, except as carriers of merchandise under the neutral flag; but they were rapidly advancing in importance and wealth. At the conclusion of the last American war, during which, by their resolute and occasionally successful struggles, they had drawn the eyes of Europe towards them, and had advanced many degrees in the general estimation of their importance as a nation, the Americans occasionally made their appearance as travellers, both on the Continent and in England; but they found that they were not so well received as their own ideas of their importance induced them to imagine they were entitled to be; especially on the Continent.

The first great personage who shewed liberality in this respect, was George the Fourth. Hearing that some American ladies of good family had complained that, having no titles, no standing in society, they did not meet with that civility to which, from descent and education, they were entitled, he received them at Court most graciously, and those very ladies are now classed among the peeresses of Great Britain. Still the difficulty remained, as it was almost impossible for the aristocracy, abroad or at home, to ascertain the justness of the claims which were made by those of a nation who professed the equality of all classes, and of whom many of the pretenders to be well received did not by their appearance warrant the supposition that their claims were valid. It being impossible to give any other rank but that of office, the American Government hit upon a plan which was attended with very evil consequences. They granted supernumerary attache-ships to those Americans who wished to travel; and as, on the Old Continent, the very circumstance of being an attache to a foreign minister warranted the respectability of the party, those who obtained this distinction were well received, and, unfortunately, sometimes did no credit to their appointments. The fact was that these favours were granted without discrimination, and all who received them being put down as specimens of American gentlemen, the character of the Americans lost ground by the very efforts made to establish it. The true American gentlemen who travelled (and there is no lack of them) were supposed to be English, while the spurious were put down as samples of the gentility of the United States.

That the principles of equality were one great cause of the indiscriminate distribution of those marks of distinction by the highest quarters in the Union, and of the facility of obtaining letters of recommendation from them there is no doubt; but the principal and still existing causes, are the extended and domineering power of the press, and the high state of excitement of the political parties. Those in power are positively afraid to refuse literary men, or those who have assisted them in their political career; they have not the moral courage to do so, however undeserving the parties may really be. But, as is generally the case, they really do not know the parties; it is sufficient that the favour, considered trifling, is demanded, and it is instantly granted. Now, as at the accession of General Jackson, and the subsequent raising of Mr Van Buren to the presidency, the democratical, or Loco Foco party came into power, it is to their friends and supporters, the least respectable portion of the American community, to whom these favours have been granted; which of course has not assisted the claims of the Americans to respectability. An instance of this sort occurred to me after I had been a few months in America. One of the most gentleman-like and well-informed men in New York, requested that I would give a letter of introduction to a friend of his who was going to England. Taking it for granted that such a request would not be made without the party deserving the recommendation, I immediately assented. The party who obtained my letters (an editor of a paper, as I afterwards discovered), on his arrival in England, considering that he was not treated with that attention to which, in his own vain-gloriousness, he thought himself entitled, actually sent a hostile letter to one of the gentlemen to whom he had been introduced, and otherwise proved himself by his conduct to be a most improper person. I was informed of this by letters from England; and immediately went to the gentleman who had requested the introduction from me, and stated the conduct of the party. "I really am very sorry," said he, "but I knew nothing of him." "Knew nothing of him?" replied I. "No, indeed; but my friend Mr C, of Philadelphia, introduced him by letter, and requested me to ask for introductions for him." "Then you will oblige me by writing to your friend Mr C, and ask him why he did so, as I find myself very much compromised by this affair." He wrote to Mr C, of Philadelphia, who replied that he was very sorry, but that really he knew nothing of him. He had been introduced to him by letter, by Mr O, and that he was a staunch supporter of their party. Now, how many grades this person had climbed up by letters of introduction it is impossible to say, but this is sufficient to prove that letters of introduction which are, you may say, demanded, and not refused from the fear of offending a political agent or penny-a-liner, must ever be received with due caution; and it is equally certain, that those from the President himself are the most easy to be obtained.

I have entered freely into this question, as it is important that it should be known, not only to the English, but to the Americans themselves. A letter of introduction from a gentleman of Carolina, Virginia, or Boston, I should be infinitely more induced to take notice of than from the President of the United States, unless the President stated that he was personally acquainted with the party who delivered it; and I make this statement in justice to the American gentlemen, and not with the slightest wish to check that intercourse which will every day increase, and, I trust, to the advantage of both nations. See note 4.

Indeed, now that such rapid communication has taken place between the two countries, since the Atlantic has been traversed by steam, it becomes more imperative that these facts should be known. Every fortnight a hundred and sixty passengers will arrive by the Great Western, or some other steamer. Most of them are American citizens, armed with their letters of recommendation, and the situation of the American minister has become one of peculiar difficulty.

By one steam-packet alone he has had seventy-five people, or families, with letters of introduction to him, mostly obtained by the means which I have described; and there is not one of these parties who does not expect as much attention as if the American minister had nothing else to do but to be at his command. They leave their cards with him; if the cards are not returned in two or three days, they send a letter to know why he has not called upon them? and if the visit is returned, send a letter to know whether the minister called in person, or not? With a stipend from his own government, quite inadequate to the purpose, he is expected, to the great detriment of his private fortune, to receive and entertain all these people. I have it from the best authority, that some of these parties have called and inquired whether the minister was at home; being answered in the negative, they have gone into a room, taken a chair, and declared their determination not to leave the house until they had seen him. Most of them expect him to obtain admittance for them into the Houses of Lords and Commons, and to present them at Court. In some instances, when the minister has stated the necessity of a Court dress, they have remonstrated, thinking it an expense wholly unnecessary. "They were American citizens, and would be introduced as such; they had nothing to do with Court dresses, and all that nonsense." And thus, since the steam-vessels have increased the communication between the two countries, has the American minister been in a state of annoyance, to which it is impossible that he, or any other who may be appointed in his place, can possibly submit.

Let the Americans understand, that those only go to Court in this country who have claims, as the nobility, the oldest commoners, people in office, the army and navy, and other liberal professions. There are thousands of families in England, by descent, fortune, and education, very superior to those of America, who never think of going to Court, being aware that such is not their sphere; and yet every American who comes over here with four or five introductions in his pocket must, forsooth, be presented. If the minister refuses, why then there is an attack upon him in the American prints, and his name and his supposed misdemeanors are bandied about from one end of the Union to the other. It is hardly credible to what a state of slavery they would reduce the American representative. One man says, "I understand I can have a Court dress at a Jew's." "Yes, you can, I believe." "Well, now, suppose we step down together; you may cheapen it a bit for me, may be." These facts are known to the respectable and gentleman-like Americans, who, after the samples which have come over, and have obtained admission into society and gone to Court, will not shew themselves, but prefer to stay at home.

All this is wrong, and a remedy must soon be found, as the evil increases every day. The Americans cannot take the English Court by storm, or force us to acknowledge their equality in this country. There are but certain classes in this country who have any pretension to be received at Court; and unless the Americans can prove that they are by their situation, or descent, of a sufficient rank to qualify them to be admitted, they must be content to be excluded, as the major portion of our countrymen are. Even an American being a member of Congress does not qualify him, although being a member of the Senate certainly should. The members of the American Congress are not in the mass equal by any means in respectability to the members of the English House of Commons; and there have been many members of the English House of Commons, since the passing of the Reform Bill, who could not, and cannot, gain admittance into society.

If the harmony and good feeling between the two countries is to continue uninterrupted, and our intercourse to be extended, as there is every probability that it will be, it appears to me that there is more importance to be attached to this question than at the first view of it might be supposed. The Americans are more ambitious of birth and aristocracy than any other nation, which is very natural, if it were only from the simple fact that we always most desire what is out of our reach. Since the Americans have come over in such numbers to this country, our Herald's Office has actually been besieged by them, in their anxiety to take out the arms and achievements of their presumed forefathers; this is also very natural and very proper, although it may be at variance with their institutions. The determination to have an aristocracy in America gains head every day: a conflict must ensue, when the increase of wealth in the country adds sufficiently to the strength of the party. But some line must be drawn in this country, as to the admission of Americans to the English Court, or, if not drawn, it will end in a total, and therefore unjust exclusion. As but few of the Americans can claim any right to aristocracy in their own country from acknowledged descent, I should not be surprised if in a few years, now that the two countries are becoming so intimately connected, a reception at the English Court of this country be considered as an establishment of their claim. If so, it will be a curious anomaly in the history of a republic, that, fifty years after it was established, the republicans should apply to the mother country whose institutions they had abjured, to obtain from her a patent of superiority, so as to raise themselves above that hated equality which, by their own institutions, they profess.

————————————————————————————————————

Note 1. English Capital Invested.—It is but fair to give the English who have invested their money in American securities, some idea of what their chance of receiving their principal or receiving their interest may be. As long as it depends upon the faith of those who have contracted the debt, their money is safe, but as soon as the power is taken out of their hands, and vested in the majority, they may consider their money as gone. I will explain this—at present the English have vested their capital in canals, railroads, and other public improvements. The returns of these undertakings are at present honourably employed in paying interest to the lenders of the capital, and if the returns are not sufficient, more money is borrowed to meet the demands of the creditor; but there is a certain point at which credit fails, and at which no more money can be borrowed; if then no more money can be borrowed, and the returns of their railroads, canals, and other securities fail off, where is the deficiency to be made good? In this country it would be made good by a tax being imposed upon the population to meet the deficiency, and support the credit of the nation. Here is the question:—will the majority in America consent to be taxed? I say, No—if they do, I shall be surprised, and be most happy to recant, but it is my opinion that they will not, and if so the English capital will be lost; and if the reader will call to mind what I have pointed out as to the probable effect of the power of America working to the westward, and the direct importation which in a few years must take place, he will see that there is every prospect of a rapid decrease in the value of all their securities, and that the only ultimate chance of their recovering the money is by this country compelling payment of it by the Federal Government.

————————————————————————————————————

Note 2. "At the time of the first settlement of the English in Virginia, when land was to be had for little or nothing, some provident persons having obtained large grants of it, and being desirous of maintaining the splendour of their families, entailed their property upon their descendants. The transmission of these estates from generation to generation, to men who bore the same name, had the effect of raising up a distinct class of families, who, possessing by law the privilege of perpetuating their wealth, formed by these means a sort of patrician order, distinguished by the grandeur and luxury of their establishments. From this order it was that the king usually chose his councillors of state.

"In the United States, the principal clauses of the English law respecting descent have been universally rejected. The first rule that we follow, says Mr Kent, touching inheritance, is the following:—If a man dies intestate, his property goes to his heirs in a direct line. If he has but one heir or heiress, he or she succeeds to the whole. If there are several heirs of the same degree, they divide the inheritance equally amongst them, without distinction of sex.

"This rule was prescribed for the first time in the State of New York by a statute of the 23rd of February, 1786. (See Revised Statutes, volume III, Appendix, page 48.) It has since then been adopted in the revised statutes of the same State. At the present day this law holds good throughout the whole of the United States, with the exception of the State of Vermont, where the male heir inherits a double portion: Kent's Commentaries, volume IV, page 370. Mr Kent, in the same work, volume IV, pages 1-22, gives an historical account of American legislation on the subject of entail; by this we learn that previous to the revolution the colonies followed the English law of entail. Estates tail were abolished in Virginia in 1776, on a motion of Mr Jefferson. They were suppressed in New York in 1786; and have since been abolished in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. In Vermont, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisiana, entail was never introduced. Those States which thought proper to preserve the English law of entail, modified it in such a way as to deprive it of its most aristocratic tendencies. 'Our general principles on the subject of government,' says Mr Kent, 'tend to favour the free circulation of property.'

"It cannot fail to strike the French reader who studies the law of inheritance, that on these questions the French legislation is infinitely more democratic even than the American.

"The American law makes an equal division of the father's property, but only in the case of his will not being known; 'for every man,' says the law, 'in the State of New York, (Revised Statutes, volume III, Appendix, page 51), has entire liberty, power, and authority, to dispose of his property by will, to leave it entire, or divided in favour of any persons he choses as his heirs, provided he do not leave it to a political body or any corporation.' The French law obliges the testator to divide his property equally, or nearly so, among his heirs.

"Most of the American republics still admit of entails, under certain restrictions; but the French law prohibits entail in all cases.

"If the social condition of the Americans is more democratic than that of the French, the laws of the latter are the most democratic of the two. This may be explained more easily than at first appears to be the case. In France, democracy is still occupied in the work of destruction; in America, it reigns quietly over the ruins it has made."—Democracy in America, by A De Tocqueville.

————————————————————————————————————

Note 3. In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they are rarely subjected to further division.

————————————————————————————————————

Note 4. It may also be here observed, that the Americans have little opportunity of judging favourably of the English by the usual importations to their country. They all call themselves English Gentlemen, and are too often supposed to be, and are received as such. I have often been told that I should meet with an English gentleman or an English merchant, and the parties mostly proved to be nothing but travellers, bagsmen, or even worse. If the sterling Americans stay at home, and send the bad ones to us, and we do the same, neither party will be likely to form a very favourable opinion of the other for some time to come.



VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER SEVEN.

GOVERNMENT.

It is not my intention to enter into a lengthened examination of the American form of government. I have said that, as a government, "with all its imperfections, it is the best suited to the present condition of America, in so far as it is the one under which the country has made, and will continue to make, the most rapid strides;" but I have not said that it was a better form of government than others. Its very weakness is favourable to the advance of the country; it may be compared to a vessel which, from her masts not being wedged, and her timbers being loose, sails faster than one more securely fastened. Considered merely as governments for the preservation of order and the equalisation of pressure upon the people, I believe that few governments are bad, as there are always some correcting influences, moral or otherwise, which strengthen those portions which are the weakest. A despot, for instance, although his power is acknowledged and submitted to, will not exercise tyranny too far, from the fear of assassination.

I have inserted in an Appendix the Form of the American Constitution, and if my readers wish to examine more closely into it, I must refer them to M. Tocqueville's excellent work. The first point which must strike the reader who examines into it is, that it is extremely complicated. It is, and it is not. It is so far complicated that a variety of wheels are at work; but it is not complicated, from the circumstance that the same principle prevails throughout, from the Township to the Federal Head, and that it is put in motion by one great and universal propelling power. It may be compared to a cotton-thread manufactory, in which thousands and thousands of reels and spindles are all at work, the labour of so many smaller reels turned over to larger, which in their turn yield up their produce, until the whole is collected into one mass. The principle of the American Government is good; the power that puts it in motion is enormous, and therefore, like the complicated machinery I have compared it to, it requires constant attention, and proper regulation of the propelling power, that it may not become out of order. The propelling power is the sovereignty of the people, otherwise the will of the majority. The motion of all propelling powers must be regulated by a fly-wheel, or corrective check, if not, the motion will gradually accelerate, until the machinery is destroyed by the increase of friction. But there are other causes by which the machinery may be deranged; as, although the smaller portions of the machine, if defective, may at any time be taken out and repaired without its being necessary for the machine to stop; yet if the larger wheels are by any chance thrown out of their equilibrium, the machinery may be destroyed just as it would be by a too rapid motion, occasioned by the excess of propelling power. Further, there are external causes which may endanger it: any machine may be thrown out of its level by a convulsion, or shock, which will cause it to cease working, if even it does not break it into fragments.

Now, the dangers which threaten the United States are, the Federal Government being still weaker than it is at present, or its becoming, as it may from circumstances, too powerful.

The present situation of the American Government is that the fly-wheel, or regulator of the propelling power (that is to say the aristocracy, or power of the senate,) has been nearly destroyed, and the consequences are that the motion is at this moment too much accelerated, and threatens in a few years to increase its rapidity, at the risk of the destruction of the whole machinery.

But, although it will be necessary to point out the weakness of the Federal Government, when opposed to the States or the majority, inasmuch as the morality of the people is seriously affected by this weakness, my object is not to enter into the merits of the government of the United States as a working government, but to inquire how far the Americans are correct in their boast of its being a model for other countries.

Let us consider what is the best form of government. Certainly that which most contributes to security of life and property, and renders those happy and moral who are submitted to it. This I believe will be generally acknowledged, and it is upon these grounds that the government of the United States must be tested. They abjured our monarchy, and left their country for a distant land, to obtain freedom. They railed at the vices and imperfections of continental rule, and proposed to themselves a government which should be perfect, under which every man should have his due weight in the representation, and prove to the world that a people could govern themselves. Disgusted with the immorality of the age and the disregard to religion, they anticipated an amendment in the state of society. This new, and supposed perfect, machinery has been working for upwards of sixty years, and let us now examine how far the theory has been supported and borne out by the practical result.

I must first remind the reader that I have already shewn the weakness of the Federal Government upon one most important point, which is, that there is not sufficient security for person and property. When such is the case, there cannot be that adequate punishment for vice so necessary to uphold the morals of a people. I will now proceed to prove the weakness of the Federal Government whenever it has to combat with the several States, or with the will of the majority.

It will be perceived, by an examination into the Constitution of the United States, that the States have reserved for themselves all the real power, and that the Federal Union exists but upon their sufferance. Each State still insists upon its right to withdraw itself from the Union whenever it pleases, and the consequence of this right is, that in every conflict with a State, the Federal Government has invariably to succumb. M. Tocqueville observes, "If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle with that of the States, at the present day, its defeat may be confidently predicted; and it is not probable that such a struggle would be seriously undertaken. As often as a steady resistance is offered to the Federal Government, it will be found to yield. Experience has hitherto shewn that whenever a State has demanded any thing with perseverance and resolution, it has invariably succeeded; and that if a separate government has distinctly refused to act, it was left to do as it thought fit. See Note 1.

"But even if the government of the Union had any strength inherent in itself, the physical situation of the country would render the excise of that strength very difficult. [See Note 2.] The United States cover an immense territory; they were separated from each other by great distances; and the population is disseminated over the surface of a country which is still half a wilderness. If the Union were to undertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate States by military means, it would be in a position very analagous to that of England at the time of the War of Independence."

The Federal Government never displayed more weakness than in the question of the tariff put upon English goods to support the manufacturers of the Northern States. The Southern States, as producers and exporters, complained of this as prejudicial to their interests. South Carolina, one of the smallest States, led the van, and the storm rose. This State passed an act by convention, annulling the Federal Act of the tariff, armed her militia, and prepared for war. The consequence was that the Federal Government abandoned the principle of the tariff, but at the same time, to save the disgrace of its defeat, it passed an act warranting the President to put down resistance by force, or, in other words, making the Union compulsory. South Carolina annulled this law of the Federal Government, but as the State gained its point by the Federal Government having abandoned the principle of the tariff, the matter ended.

Another instance in which the Federal Government showed its weakness when opposed to a State, was in its conflict with Georgia. The Federal Government had entered into a solemn, and what ought to have been an inviolable treaty, with the Cherokee Indians, securing to them the remnant of their lands in the State of Georgia. The seventh Article of that treaty says, "The United States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation all their lands not hitherto ceded." The State of Georgia, when its population increased, did not like the Indians to remain, and insisted upon their removal. What was the result?—that the Federal Government, in violation of a solemn treaty and the national honour, submitted to the dictation of Georgia, and the Indians were removed to the other side of the Mississippi.

These instances are sufficient to prove the weakness of the Federal Government when opposed to the States; it is still weaker when opposed to the will of the majority. I have already quoted many instances of the exercise of this uncontrolled will. I do not refer to Lynch law, or the reckless murders in the Southern States, but to the riots in the most civilised cities, such as Boston, New York, and Baltimore, in which outrages and murders have been committed without the Government ever presuming to punish the perpetrators; but the strongest evidence of the helplessness of the Government, when opposed to the majority, has been in the late Canadian troubles, which, I fear, have only for the season subsided. If many have doubts of the sincerity of the President of the United States in his attempts to prevent the interference of the Americans, there can be no doubt but that General Scott, Major Worth, and the other American officers sent to the frontiers, did their utmost to prevent the excesses which were committed, and to allay the excitement; and every one is aware how unavailing were their efforts. The magazines were broken open, the field-pieces and muskets taken possession of; large subscriptions of money poured in from every quarter; farmers sent waggon-loads of pigs, corn, and buffalos, to support the insurgents. No one would, indeed no one could, act against the will of the majority, and these officers found themselves left to their individual and useless exertions.

The militia at Detroit were ordered out: they could not refuse to obey the summons, as they were individually liable to fine and imprisonment; but as they said, very truly, "You may call us out, but when we come into action we will point our muskets in which direction we please." Indeed, they did assist the insurgents and fire at our people; and when the insurgents were defeated, one of the drums which they had with them, and which was captured by our troops, was marked with the name of the militia corps which had been called out to repel them.

When the people are thus above the law, it is of very little consequence whether the law is more or less weak; at present the Federal Government is a mere cypher when opposed by the majority. Have, then, the Americans improved upon us in this point? It is generally admitted that a strong and vigorous government, which can act when it is necessary to restrain the passions of men under excitement, is most favourable to social order and happiness; but, on the contrary, when the dormant power of the executive should be brought into action, all that the Federal Government can do is to become a passive spectator or a disregarded suppliant.

————————————————————————————————————

Note 1. See the conduct of the Northern States in the war of 1812. "During that war," says Jefferson in a letter to General Lafayette, "four of the Eastern States were only attached to the Union, like so many inanimate bodies to living men."

————————————————————————————————————

Note 2. The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for a standing army; and without a standing army a Government is not prepared to profit by a favourable opportunity to conquer resistance, and take the sovereign power by surprise.



VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER EIGHT.

The next question to be examined into is, has this government of the United States set an example of honour, good faith, and moral principle, to those who are subjected to it?—has it, by so behaving, acted favourably upon the morals of the people, and corrected the vices and errors of the monarchical institutions which the Americans hold up to such detestation?

The Americans may be said to have had, till within the last twenty years, little or no relation with other countries. They have had few treaties to make, and very little diplomatic arrangements with the old Continent. But even if they had had, they must not be judged by them; a certain degree of national honour is necessary to every nation, if they would have the respect of others, and a dread of the consequences would always compel them to adhere to any treaty made with great and powerful countries. The question is, has the Federal Government adhered to its treaties and promises made with and to those who have been too weak to defend themselves? Has it not repeatedly, in the short period of their existence as a nation, violated the national honour whenever without being in fear of retaliation or exposure it has been able to do so. Let this question be answered by an examination into their conduct towards the unhappy Indians, who, to use their own expression, are "now melting away like snow before the white men." We are not to estimate the morality of a government by its strict adherence to its compacts with the powerful, but by its strict moral sense of justice towards the weak and defenceless; and it should be borne in mind, that one example of a breach of faith on the part of a democratic government, is more injurious to the morals of the people tinder that government than a thousand instances of breach of faith which may occur in society; for a people who have no aristocracy to set the example, must naturally look to the conduct of their rulers and to their decisions, as a standard for their guidance. To enumerate the multiplied breaches of faith towards the Indians would swell out this work to an extra volume. It was a bitter sarcasm of the Seminole chief, who, referring to the terms used in the treaties, told the Indian agents that the white man's "for ever" did not last long enough. Even in its payment of the trifling sums for the lands sold by the Indians and resold at an enormous profit, the American Government has not been willing to adhere to its agreement; and two years ago, when the Indians came for their money, the American Government told them, like an Israelite dealer, that they must take half money and half goods. The Indians remonstrated; the chiefs replied, "Our young men have purchased upon credit, as they are wont to do; they require the dollars, to pay honestly what they owe."

"Is our great father so poor?" said one chief to the Indian agent; "I will lend him some money;" and he ordered several thousand dollars to be brought, and offered them to the agent.

In the Florida war, to which I shall again refer, the same want of faith has been exercised. Unable to drive the Indians out of their swamps and morasses, they have persuaded them to come into a council, under a flag of truce. This flag of truce has been violated, and the Indians have been thrown into prison until they could be sent away to the Far West, that is, if they survived their captivity, which the gallant Osceola could not. Let it not be supposed that the officers employed are the parties to blame in these acts; it is, generally speaking, the Indian agents who are employed in these nefarious transactions. Among these agents there are many honourable men, but a corrupt government will always find people corrupt enough to do anything it may wish. But any language that I can use as to the conduct of the American Government towards the Indians would be light, compared to the comments made in my presence by the officers and other American gentlemen upon this subject. Indeed, the indignation expressed is so general, that it proves there is less morality in the Government than there is in the nation.

With the exception of the Florida war, which still continues, the last contest which the American Government had with the Indians was with the Sacs and Foxes, commanded by the celebrated chief, Black Hawk. The Sacs and Foxes at that period held a large tract of land on Rock river, in the territory of Ioway, on the east side of the Mississippi, which the Government wished, perforce, to take from them. The following is Black Hawk's account of the means by which this land was obtained. The war was occasioned by Black Hawk disowning the treaty and attempting to repossess the territory.

"Some moons after this young chief (Lieutenant Pike) descended the Mississippi, one of our people killed an American, and was confined in the prison at St Louis for the offence. We held a council at our village to see what could be done for him, which determined that Quash-qua-me, Pa-she-pa-ho, Ou-che-qua-ha, and Ha-she-quar-hi-qua, should go down to St Louis, and see our American father, and do all they could to have our friend released; by paying for the person killed, thus covering the blood and satisfying the relations of the man murdered! This being the only means with us of saving a person who had killed another, and we then thought it was the same way with the whites.

"The party started with the good wishes of the whole nation, hoping they would accomplish the object of their mission. The relations of the prisoner blacked their faces and fasted, hoping the Great Spirit would take pity on them, and return the husband and the father to his wife and children.

"Quash-qua-me and party remained a long time absent. They at length returned, and encamped a short distance below the village, but did not come up that day, nor did any person approach their camp. They appeared to be dressed in fine coats and had medals. From these circumstances, we were in hopes they had brought us good news. Early the next morning, the council lodge was crowded; Quash-qua-me and party came up, and gave us the following account of their mission:—

"On their arrival at St Louis, they met their American father, and explained to him their business, and urged the release of their friend. The American chief told them he wanted land, and they agreed to give him some on the west side of the Mississippi, and some on the Illinois side, opposite the Jeffreon. When the business was all arranged, they expected to have their friend released to come home with them. But about the time they were ready to start, their friend, who was led out of prison, ran a short distance, and was shot dead. This is all they could recollect of what was said and done. They had been drunk the greater part of the time they were in St Louis.

"This is all myself or nation knew of the treaty of 1804. It has been explained to me since. I find by that treaty, all our country east of the Mississippi, and south of the Jeffreon, was ceded to the United States for one thousand dollars a year! I will leave it to the people of the United States to say, whether our nation was properly represented in this treaty? or whether we received a fair compensation for the extent of country ceded by those four individuals. I could say much mere about this treaty, but I will not at this time. It has been the origin of all our difficulties."

Indeed, I have reason to believe that the major portion of the land obtained from the Indians has been ceded by parties who had no power to sell it, and the treaties with these parties have been enforced by the Federal Government.

In a Report for the protection of the Western Frontier, submitted to Congress by the Secretary of War, we have a very fair expose of the conduct and intentions of the American Government towards the Indians. Although the Indians continue to style the President of the United States as their Great Father, yet, in this report, the Indian feeling which really exists towards the American people is honestly avowed; it says in its preamble—

"As yet no community of feeling, except of deep and lasting hatred to the white man, and particularly to the Anglo-Americans, exists among them, and, unless they coalesce, no serious difficulty need be apprehended from them. Not so, however, should they be induced to unite for purposes offensive and defensive; their strength would then become apparent, create confidence, and in all probability induce them to give vent to their long-suppressed desire to revenge past wrongs, which is restrained, as they openly and freely confess, by fear alone."

And speaking of the feuds between the tribes, as in the case of the Sioux and Chippeways, which, as I have observed in my Journal, the American Government pretended to be anxious to make up; it appears that this anxiety is not so very great, for the Report says—

"Should it however prove otherwise, the United States will, whenever they choose, be able to bring the whole of the Sioux force (the hereditary and irreclaimable enemy to every other Indian) to bear against the hostiles; or vice versa, should our difficulty be with the Sioux nation. And the suggestion is made, whether prudence does not require, that those hereditary feelings should not rather be maintained than destroyed by efforts to cultivate a closer reunion between them."

This Report also very delicately points out, when speaking of the necessity of a larger force on the frontier, that, "it is merely adverted to in connexion with the heavy obligations which rest upon the Government, and which have been probably contracted from time to time without any very nice calculation of the means which would be necessary to a faithful discharge of them."

I doubt whether this Report would have been presented by Congress had there been any idea of its finding its way to the Old Country. By-and-by I shall refer to it again. I have made these few extracts merely to shew that expediency, and not moral feeling, is the principle alone which guides the Federal Government of the United States.

The next instance which I shall bring forward to prove the want of principle of the Federal Government is its permitting, and it may be said tacitly acquiescing, in the seizure of the province of Texas, and allowing it to be ravished from the Mexican Government, with whom they were on terms of amity, but who was unfortunately too weak to help herself. In this instance the American Government had no excuse, as it actually had an army on the frontier, and could have compelled the insurgents to go back; but no; it perceived that the Texas, if in its hands, or if independent of Mexico, would become a mart for their extra slave population, that it was the finest country in the world for producing cotton, and that it would be an immense addition of valuable territory. Dr Channing's letter to Mr Clay is so forcible on this question, enters so fully into the merits of the case, and points out so clearly the nefariousness of the transaction, that I shall now quote a few passages from this best of American authority. Indeed, I consider that this letter of Dr Channing is the principal cause why the American Government have not as yet admitted Texas into the Union. The efforts of the Northern States would not have prevented it, but it has actually been shamed by Dr Channing, who says—

"The United States have not been just to Mexico. Our citizens did not steal singly, silently, in disguise, into that land. Their purpose of dismembering Mexico, and attaching her distant province to this country, was not wrapt in mystery. It was proclaimed in our public prints. Expeditions were openly fitted out within our borders for the Texan war. Troops were organised, equipped, and marched for the scene of action. Advertisements for volunteers, to be enrolled and conducted to Texas at the expense of that territory, were inserted in our newspapers. The Government, indeed, issued its proclamation, forbidding these hostile preparations; but this was a dead letter. Military companies, with officers and standards, in defiance of proclamations, and in the face of day, directed their steps to the revolted province. We had, indeed, an army near the frontiers of Mexico. Did it turn back these invaders of a land with which we were at peace? On the contrary, did not its presence give confidence to the revolters? After this, what construction of our conduct shall we force on the world, if we proceed, especially at this moment, to receive into our Union the territory, which, through our neglect, has fallen a prey to lawless invasion? Are we willing to take our place among robber-states? As a people have we no self-respect? Have we no reverence for national morality? Have we no feeling of responsibility to other nations, and to Him by whom the fates of nations are disposed?"

Dr Channing then proceeds:—

"Some crimes by their magnitude have a touch of the sublime; and to this dignity the seizure of Texas by our citizens is entitled. Modern times furnish no example of individual rapine on so grand a scale. It is nothing less than the robbery of a realm. The pirate seizes a ship. The colonists and their coadjutors can satisfy themselves with nothing short of an empire. They have left their Anglo-Saxon ancestors behind them. Those barbarians conformed to the maxims of their age, to the rude code of nations in time of thickest heathen darkness. They invaded England under their sovereigns, and with the sanction of the gloomy religion of the North. But it is in a civilised age, and amidst refinements of manners; it is amidst the lights of science and the teachings of Christianity; amidst expositions of the law of nations and enforcements of the law of universal love; amidst institutions of religion, learning, and humanity, that the robbery of Texas has found its instruments. It is from a free, well-ordered, enlightened Christian country, that hordes have gone forth in open day, to perpetrate this mighty wrong."

I shall conclude my remarks upon this point with one more extract from the same writer.

"A nation, provoking war by cupidity, by encroachment, and, above all, by efforts to propagate the curse of slavery, is alike false to itself, to God, and to the human race."

Having now shewn how far the Federal Government may be considered as upholding the purity of its institutions by the example of its conduct towards others, let us examine whether in its domestic management it sets a proper example to the nation. It cries out against the bribery and corruption of England. Is it itself free from this imputation?

The author of a 'Voice from America' observes, "In such an unauthorised, unconstitutional, and loose state of things, millions of the public money may be appropriated to electioneering and party purposes, and to buy up friends of the administration, without being open to proof or liable to account. It is a simple matter of fact, that all the public funds lost in this way, have actually gone to buy up friends to the government, whether the defalcations were matters of understanding between the powers at Washington and these parties, or not. The money is gone, and is going; and it goes to friends. So much is true, whatever else is false. And what has already been used up in this way, according to official report, is sufficient to buy the votes of a large fraction of the population of the United States,—that is to say, sufficient to produce an influence adequate to secure them. On the 17th of January, 1838, the United States treasurer reported to Congress sixty-three defalcators (individuals), in all to the amount of upwards of a million of dollars, without touching the vast amounts lost in the local banks,—a mere beginning of the end."

As I have before observed, when Mr Adams was President, a Mr B Walker was thrown into prison for being a defaulter to the extent of eighteen thousand dollars. Why are none of these defaulters to the amount of upwards a million of dollars punished? If the government thinks proper to allow them to remain at liberty, does it not virtually wink at their dishonesty. Neither the defaulters nor their securities are touched. It would appear as if it were an understood arrangement; the government telling these parties, who have assisted them, "we cannot actually pay you money down for your services; but we will put money under your control, and you may, if you please, help yourself." What has been the result of this conduct upon society?—that as the government does not consider a breach of faith as deserving of punishment, society does not think so either; and thus are the people demoralised, not only by the example of government in its foreign relations, but by its leniency towards those individuals who are as regardless of faith as the government has proved to be itself.

Indeed, it may be boldly asserted, that in every measure taken by the Federal Government, the moral effect of that measure upon the people has never been thought worthy of a moment's consideration.



VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER NINE.

We must now examine into one or two other points. The Americans consider that they are the only people on earth who govern themselves. They assert that we have not a free and perfect representation. We will not dispute that point; the question is, not what the case in England may be, but what America may have gained. This is certain, that if they have not a free impartial representation, they do not, as they suppose, govern themselves. Have they, with universal suffrage, obtained a representation free from bribery and corruption? If they have, they certainly have gained their point; if they have not, they have sacrificed much, and have obtained nothing.

By a calculation which I made at the time I was in the United States of all the various elections which took place annually, biennially, and at longer dates, including those for the Federal Government, the separate governments of each State, and many other elective offices, there are about two thousand five hundred elections of different descriptions every year; and if I were to add the civic elections, which are equally political, I do not know what amount they would arrive at. In this country we have on an average about two hundred elections per annum, so that, in America, for thirteen millions, they have two thousand five hundred elections, and in England for twenty-seven millions, two hundred, on the average, during the year.

It must, however, be admitted, that the major portion of these elections in the United States pass off quietly, probably from the comparative want of interest excited by them, and the continual repetition which takes place; but when the important elections are in progress the case is very different; the excitement then becomes universal; the coming election is the theme of every tongue, the all-engrossing topic, and nothing else is listened or paid attention to.

It must be remembered, that the struggle in America is for place, not for principle; for whichever party obtains power, their principle of acting is much the same. Occasionally a question of moment will come forward and nearly convulse the Union, but this is very rare; the general course of legislation is in a very narrow compass, and is seldom more than a mere routine of business. With the majority, who lead a party, (particularly the one at present in power), the contest is not, therefore, for principle, but, it may almost be said, for bread; and this is one great cause of the virulence accompanying their election struggles. The election of the President is of course the most important. M. Tocqueville has well described it, "For a long while before the appointed time is at hand, the election becomes the most important and the all-engrossing topic of discussion. The ardour of faction is redoubled; and all the artificial passions which the imagination can create in the bosom of a happy and peaceful land are and brought to light. The President, on the other hand, is absorbed by the cares of self-defence. He no longer governs for the interest of the State, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands him to do, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favourite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of the public papers, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every action, the sole interest of the present."

Of course the elections in the large cities are those which next occupy the public attention. I have before stated, that at the last election in New York the committees of the opposite party were bought over by the Whigs, and that by this bribery the election was gained; but I will now quote from the Americans themselves, and let the reader then decide in which country, England or America, there is most purity of election.

"On the 9th, 10th, and 11th instant, a local election for mayor and charter-offices was held in this city. It resulted in the defeat of the Whig party. The Loco-focos had a majority of about one thousand and fifty for their mayor. Last April the Whigs had a majority of about five hundred. There are seventeen wards, and seventeen polls were opened. The out, or suburb, wards presented the most disgraceful scenes of riot, fraud, corruption, and perjury, that were ever witnessed in this or any other country on a similar occasion. The whole number of votes polled was forty-one thousand three hundred. It is a notorious fact, that there are not forty thousand legal voters residing in the city. In the abstract this election is but of little importance. Its moral influence on other sections of the country remains to be seen. Generally, the effect of such a triumph is unfavourable to the defeated party in other places; and it would be so in the present instance, if the contest had been an ordinary contest, but the circumstances to which I have referred of fraud, corruption, and perjury, may, or may not, re-act upon the alleged authors of these shameless proceedings."

Again, "The moderate and thinking men of both parties—indeed, we may say every honourable man who has been a spectator of recent events—feel shocked at the frauds, perjury, and corruption, which too evidently enabled the administration party to poll so powerful a vote. What are we coming to in this country? A peaceable contest at the polls is a peaceable test of party—it is to ascertain the opinions and views of citizens entitled to vote—it is a fair and honourable party appeal to the ballot-box. We are all Americans—living under the same constitution and laws; each boasting of his freedom and equal rights— our political differences are, after all, the differences between members of the same national family. What, therefore, is to become of our freedom and rights, our morals, safety, and religion, if the administration of our government is permitted to embark in such open, avowed, palpable schemes of fraud and corruption as those recently exhibited in this city? More than five thousand strangers, having no interest and no domicile, are introduced by the partisans of the administration into the city, and brought up to the polls to decide who shall make our municipal laws. More than four hundred votes over and above the ascertained votes of a ward, are polled in such ward. Men moved from ward to ward to sleep one night as an evasive qualification. More than two hundred sailors, from United States' vessels of war, brought over to the city to vote—sloops and small craft, trading down the north and east rivers, each known never to have more than three bands, turning out thirty or forty voters from each vessel. Men turned from the polls for want of legal qualifications, brought back by administration partisans and made to swear in their vote. Hundreds with the red clay of New Jersey adhering to their thick-soled shoes, presenting themselves to vote as citizens of New York, and all this fraud and perjury set on foot and justified to enable Mr Van Buren to say, 'I have recovered the city.' But he has been signally defeated, as he ought to be, notwithstanding all his mighty efforts. There is this day a clearly ascertained Whig majority in this city of five thousand.

"It is, therefore, a mockery to call a contest with persons from other States, hired for the occasion, an election. We must have a registry of votes, in order to sweep away this vast system of perjury and fraud; and every man who has an interest at stake in his person, his children, or his property, must demand it of the legislature, as the only means of coming to a fair decision on all such matters. This charter election should open the eyes of the honourable of all parties to the dangers that menace us, and a redress provided in time."

Again, "The Atlas, Monday Morning, April 16, 1838.—(Triumphant Result of the Election to New York).—We have rarely known an election which, during its continuance, has excited so lively a degree of interest as has been felt in regard to the contest just terminated in New York. From numerous quarters we have received letters requesting us to transmit the earliest intelligence of the result, and an anxiety has been evinced among the Whigs of the country, which we have hardly seen surpassed. The tremendous onset of the Loco-focos upon the first day increased this anxiety, and fears began to be entertained that the unparalleled and unscrupulous efforts of our opponents—their shameless resort to every species of fraud, violence, and corruption—their importation of foreign, perjured voters, and the lavish distribution of the public money—might possibly overpower the legitimate voice of the majority of the citizens of New York. But gloriously have these fears been dispelled. Nobly have the Whigs of the great metropolis done their duty. Gladly does old Massachusetts respond to their paeans of triumph.

"We learn from the New York papers that there was considerable uneasiness in that city on Friday among the Whigs with regard to the result. Never was the struggle of the administration party so desperate and convulsive. Hordes of aliens and illegal voters were driven into the city—

"'In multitudes, like which the populace North Poured never from her frozen loins, to pass Rhine or the Danube.'

"The most reasonable calculation admits that there must have been at least four thousand illegal votes polled at the different wards. Squatters and loafers from the Croton Water-Works, from Brooklyn and Long Island, and from Troy to Sing Sing, took up their line of march for the doubtful wards, to dragoon the city into submission to Mr Van Buren. Some of the wards threw from four hundred to six hundred more votes than there were known to be residents in them. Double voting was practised to a great extent. The Express says, the whole spirit of the naturalisation laws was defied, and an utter mockery was made of the sacred right of suffrage. What party is likely to be most guilty of these things, may be judged from the fact, that the Loco-foco party resist every proposition for a registry law, or any other law that will give the people a fair and honest and constitutional system of voting."

When I was one day with one of the most influential of the Whig party at New York, he was talking about their success in the contest—"We beat them, sir, literally with their own weapons." "How so," replied I. "Why, sir, we bought over all their bludgeon men at so many dollars a head, and the very sticks intended to be used to keep us from the poll were employed upon the heads of the Loco-focos!" So much for purity of election.

Another point which is worthy of inquiry is, how far is the government of the United States a cheap government; that is, not as to the amount of money expended in that country as compared to the amount of money paid in England or France, but cheap as to the work done for the money paid? And, viewing it in this light, I rather think it will be found a very expensive one. It is true that the salaries are low, and the highest officers are the worst paid, but it should be recollected that every body is paid. [See Note 1.] The expenses of the Federal Government, shown up to the world as a proof of cheap government, is but a portion of the real expenses which are paid by the several States. Thus the government will promulgate to the world that they have a surplus revenue of so many millions, but at the same time it will be found that the States themselves are borrowing money and are deeply in debt. The money that disappears is enormous; I never could understand what has become of the boasted surplus revenue which was lodged in the pet banks, as they were termed. The paid officers in the several States are very numerous; take, for instance, the State of New York alone. An American newspaper has the following article:—

"THE STANDING ARMY."

The following is given in the Madisonian as the rank and file of the executive standing army of office-holders in the State of New York. How hardly can the freedom of elections be maintained against the natural enemies of that freedom, when their efforts are seconded by the assaults of such an army of placemen, whose daily bread, under the rule and reign of the spoilers, is dependent on their partisan exertions!

"1880 Postmasters. 217 Mail Contractors. 59 Clerks in the New York Post-office. 25 Lighthouse Keepers. 500 Custom-House Officers.

"These," says the Madisonian, "constitute a regiment of the King's own, well drilled in the system of terrorism and seduction, and of dragooning voters!"

And it should be remarked, that in the United States, upon any one party losing an election, the whole of that party in office, even down to the lamplighters, are turned out, and replaced by partisans of the successful party; capability for office is never considered, the only object is to reward political services. That the work cannot be well carried on when there are such constant changes, attended with ignorance of the duties imposed, is most certain. The long list of defaulters proves that the party at present in power is supported by needy and unprincipled men; indeed, there is a waste of money in almost every department which would be considered monstrous in this country. The expenses of the Florida war are a proof of this. The best written accounts from America are those written by a party who signs himself "A Genevese Traveller," and whose letters very often appear in the Times newspaper. I have invariably observed the correctness not only of his statements of facts, but of the opinions drawn from them. Speaking of the Florida war, he has the following observations:—

"As to the expenditure, it is yet more astounding. Not less than 20,000,000 dollars have already been lavished upon favourites, or plundered from the treasury by marauders, whose profligacy and injustice caused the war. Army contractors, government agents, etcetera, are wallowing in wealth obtained by the worst means; and these are the men that condemn a peace, and will do all in their power to produce and keep up an excitement. But unless they can reach the treasury of the United States, their sympathy for the murdered inhabitants will soon evaporate. I hope, however, and believe that the war for the present is at an end. But the peace will only be temporary, for the rapacity of the avaricious land speculator will not be satisfied until the red man is deprived of every acre of land."

To enter into any estimate of expense would be impossible; all I assert is, that there is a much greater waste of public money in the United States than in other countries, and that for the work done they pay very dearly. I shall therefore conclude with an extract from M. Tocqueville, who attempts in vain to come to any approximation.

"Wherever the poor direct public affairs, and dispose of the national resources, it appears certain, that as they profit by the expenditure of the State, they are apt to augment that expenditure.

"I conclude, therefore, without having recourse to inaccurate computations, and without hazarding a comparison which might prove in correct, that the democratic government of the Americans is not a cheap government, as is sometimes asserted; and I have no hesitation in predicting, that if the people of the United States are ever involved in serious difficulties, its taxation will speedily be increased to the rate of that which prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies and the monarchies of Europe."

————————————————————————————————————

Note 1. I cannot here refrain from making an extract from M. Tocqueville's clever work, well worthy the attention of those who rule in this country, as probably they may not be aware of what they are doing: "When a democratic republic renders offices which had formerly been remunerated gratuitous, it may safely be believed that the State is advancing to monarchical institutions; and when a monarchy begins to remunerate such officers as had hitherto been unpaid, it is a sure sign that it is approaching towards a despotic or a republican form of government. The substitution of paid for unpaid functionaries, is of itself, in my opinion, sufficient to constitute a serious revolution."



VOLUME TWO, CHAPTER TEN.

The Americans, and with justice, hold up Washington as one of the first of men; if so, why will they not pay attention to his opinions? because the first of men must not interfere with their prejudices, or, if he does, he immediately in their eyes becomes the last. Nevertheless, Washington proved his ability when he made the following observation, in his letter to Chief Justice Jay, dated 10th of March, 1787; even at that early period he perceived that the institutions of America, although at the time much less democratical than at present, would not stand. Hear the words of Washington, for they were a prophecy:—

"Among men of reflection, few will be found, I believe, who are not beginning to think that our system is better in theory than in practice and that, notwithstanding the boasted virtue of America, it is more than probable that we shall exhibit the last melancholy proof, that mankind are incompetent to their own government without the means of coercion in the sovereign."

Now, if you were to put this extract into the hands of an American, his admiration of Washington would immediately fall down below zero, and in all probability he would say, as they do of poor Captain Lawrence—"Why, sir, Washington was a great man, but great men have their failings. I guess he wrote that letter after dinner."

But Washington has been supported in this opinion by a modern American patriot, Dr Charming, who, asserting that, "Our institutions have disappointed us all," has pointed out the real effects of democracy upon the morals of the nation; and there are many other good and honest men in America who will occasionally tell the truth, although they seldom venture to put their names to what they write. In a manifesto, published when I was in the States, the following bitter pills for the democrats were inserted. Speaking of dependence on the virtue and intelligence of the people, the manifesto says:—

"A form of government which has no better corrective of public disorders than this, is a burlesque on the reason and intelligence of men; it is as incompatible with wisdom as it is with public prosperity and happiness.

"The people are, by principle and the Constitution, guarded against the tyranny of kings, but not against their own passions, and ignorance, and delusions."

The necessity of relying on some other power than the people is therefore enforced:

"Such facts have induced nations to abandon the practice of electing their chief magistrate; preferring to receive that officer by hereditary succession. Men have found that the chances of having a good chief magistrate by birth, are about equal to the chances of obtaining one by popular election. And, boast as we will, that the superior intelligence of our citizens may render this government an exception, time will show that this is a mistake. No nation can be an exception, till the Almighty shall change the whole character of man.

"It is a solemn truth, that when executive officers are dependent for their offices on annual or frequent elections, there will be no impartial or efficient administration of the laws.

"It is in vain that men attempt to disguise the truth; the fact, beyond all debate, is that the disorders in our political affairs are the genuine and natural consequences of defects in the Constitution, and of the false and visionary opinions which Mr Jefferson and his disciples have been proclaiming for forty years.

"The mass of the people seem not to consider that the affairs of a great commercial nation require for their correct management talents of the first order.

"Of all this, the mass of our population appear to know little or nothing.

"The mass of the people, seduced and disciplined by their leaders, are still farther deceived, by being taught that our public disorders are to be ascribed to other causes than the ignorance and perversity of their party.

"And yet our citizens are constantly boasting of the intelligence of the people! Intelligence! The history of nations cannot present an example of such total want of intelligence as our country now exhibit: and what is more, a want of integrity is equally surprising."

This is strong language to use in a republic, but let us examine a little.

The great desideratum to be attended to in the formation of a government is to guard against man preying upon his fellow-creature. Call a government by any name you will, prescribe what forms you may, the one great point to be adhered to, is such a code of laws as will put it out of the power of any one individual, or any one party, from oppressing another. The despot may trifle with the lives of his people; an aristocracy may crush the poorer classes into a state of bondage, and the poorer classes being invariably the most numerous, may resort to their physical force to control those who are wealthy, and despoil them of their possessions. Correctly speaking, the struggle is between the plebeian and the patrician, the poor and the rich, and it is therefore that a third power has, by long experience, been considered as necessary (an apex, or head to the pyramid of society), to prevent and check the disorders which may arise from struggles of ambition among the upper classes.

Wherever this apex has been wanting, there has been a continual attempt to possess it; whenever it has been elective, troubles have invariably ensued; experience has, therefore, shewn that, for the benefit of all classes, and the maintenance of order, the wisest plan was to make it hereditary. It is not to be denied that despotism, when it falls into good hands, has rendered a nation flourishing and happy, that an oligarchy has occasionally, but more rarely, governed with mildness and a regard to justice; but there never yet was a case of a people having seized upon the power, but the result has been one of rapacity and violence, until a master-spirit has sprung up and controlled them by despotic rule. But, although one despot, or one oligarchy may govern well, they are exceptions to the general rule; and, therefore, in framing a government, the rule by which you must be guided, is on the supposition that each class will encroach, and the laws must be so constituted as to guard against the vices and passions of mankind.

To suppose that a people can govern themselves, that is to say directly, is absurd. History has disproved it. They may govern themselves indirectly, by selecting from the mass the more enlightened and intelligent, binding themselves to adhere to their decisions, and, at the same time, putting that due and necessary check to the power invested in their delegates, which shall prevent their making an improper use of it. The great point to arrive at, is the exact measure and weight of their controlling influences, so as to arrive at the just equipoise; nor can these proportions be always the same, but must be continually added to or reduced, according to the invariable progressions or recessions which must ever take place in this world, where nothing stands still.

The history of nations will shew, that although the just balance has often been lost, that if either the aristocracy or the ruling power gained any advantage, the evil, if too oppressive, was capable of being corrected; but any advance gained by the democratic party, has never been retraced, and that it has been by the preponderance of power being thrown into its hands that nations have fallen. Of all the attempts at republics, that of the Spartan, perhaps, is the most worthy of examination, as Lycurgus went to work radically, and his laws were such as to obtain that equality so much extolled. How far the term republic was applicable to the Spartan form of government I will not pretend to say, but when Lycurgus was called upon to re-construct its legislation, his first act was to make the necessary third power, and he appointed a senate.

But Lycurgus was wise enough to perceive that he must amend the morals of his countrymen, and that to preserve an equality of condition he must take away all incentives to ambition, or to the acquisition of wealth. He first divided the lands into equal portions, compelled all classes, from the kings downwards, to eat at the same table, brought up all the children in the same hardy manner, and obliged every citizen after a certain age to carry arms. But more sacrifices were necessary; Lycurgus well knew:

Quid leges sine moribus vanae profleunt. Horace, Ode 24, lib. 3.

To guard against the contagion of corruption, he prohibited navigation and commerce; he permitted no intercourse with foreigners; he abolished the gold and silver coin as current money, that every stimulus to any one individual to exalt himself above his neighbour should be removed. If ever there was a system calculated to produce equality, it was that planned by the wisdom of Lycurgus; but I doubt if the Americans would like to follow in his footsteps.

What occasioned the breaking up and the downfall of this republic? An increase of power given to the democratic party, by the creation out of their ranks of the magistrates, termed Ephori, which threw an undue weight and preponderance into the hands of the people. By this breach in the constitution, faction and corruption were let in and fomented. Plutarch, indeed, denies this, but both Polybius and Aristotle are of a different opinion; the latter says, that the power of the Ephori was so great as to amount to a perfect tyranny; the kings themselves were necessitated to court their favour by such methods as greatly to hurt the constitution, which from an aristocracy degenerated into an absolute democracy. Solon was called in to re-model the constitution of the Athenian republic. He had a more difficult task than Lycurgus, and did not so well succeed. He left too much power in the hands of the democracy, the decisions of the superior courts being liable to appeal, and to be rescinded by the mass of the people. Anacharsis, the Scythian philosopher, when he heard some points first debated in the Senate, and afterwards debated in the Assembly of the people, very properly observed, that at Athens "Wise men debated, but fools decided." The whole history of the Athenian republic is, therefore, one of outrageous bribery and corruption among the higher class; tyranny, despotism, and injustice on the part of the lower, or majority.

The downfall of the Roman empire may equally be traced to the undue weight obtained by the people by the appointment of the tribunes, and so it will be proved in almost every instance: the reason why the excess of power is more destructive when in the hands of the people is, that either they, by retaining the power in their own hands, exercise a demoralising despotism, or if they have become sufficient venal, they sell themselves to be tyrannised over in their turn.

I have made these remarks, because I wish to corroborate my opinion, that, "power once gained by the people is never to be recovered, except by bribery and corruption," and that until then, every grant is only the forerunner of an extension; and that although the undue balance of power of the higher classes occasionally may be, that in the hands of the people is invariably attended by the downfall of the institution.

At the same time, I do not intend to deny the right of the people to claim an extension of their privileges, in proportion as they rise by education to the right of governing themselves; unfortunately these privileges have been given, or taken, previous to their being qualified. A republic is certainly, in theory, the most just form of government, but, up to the present day, history has proved that no people have yet been prepared to receive it.

That there is something very imposing in the present rapid advance of the United States, I grant, but this grandeur is not ascribed by the Americans to its true source: it is the magnificent and extended country, not their government and institutions, which has been the cause of their prosperity. The Americans think otherwise, and, as I have before observed, they are happy in their own delusions—they do not make a distinction between what they have gained by their country, and what they have gained by their institutions. Everything is on a vast and magnificent scale, which at first startles you; but if you examine closely and reflect, you are convinced that there is at present more show than substance, and that the Americans are actually existing (and until they have sufficient labourers to sow and reap, and gather up the riches of their land, must continue to exist) upon the credit and capital of England.

The American republic was commenced very differently from any other, and with what were real advantages, if she had not been too ambitious and too precipitate in seizing upon them. A republic has generally been considered the most primitive form of rule; it is, on the contrary, the very last pitch of refinement in government, and the cause of its failure up to the present has been, that no people have as yet been sufficiently enlightened to govern themselves. Republics, generally speaking, have at their commencement been confined to small portions of territory having been formed by the extension of townships after the inhabitants had become wealthy and ambitious. In America, on the contrary, the republic commenced with unbounded territory—a vast field for ambition and enterprise, that has acted as a safety-valve to carry off the excess of disappointed ambition, which, like steam, is continually generating under such a form of government. And, certainly, if ever a people were in a situation, as far as education, knowledge, precepts and lessons for guidance and purity of manners could enable them, to govern themselves, those were so who first established the American independence.

Fifty years have passed away, and the present state of America I have already shown. From purity of manners, her moral code has sunk below that of most other nations. She has attempted to govern herself—she is dictated to by the worst of tyrannies. She has planted the tree of liberty; instead of its flourishing, she has neither freedom of speech nor of action. She has railed against the vices of monarchical forms of government, and every vice against which she has raised up her voice, is still more prevalent under her own. She has cried out against corruption—she is still more corrupt: against bribery—her people are to be bought and sold: against tyranny—she is in fetters. She has proved to the world that, with every advantage on her side, the attempt at a republic has been a miserable failure, and that the time is not yet come when mankind can govern themselves. Will it ever come? In my opinion, never!

Although the horizon may be clear at present, yet I consider that the prospect of the United States is anything but cheering. It is true that for a time the States may hold together, that they may each year rapidly increase in prosperity and power, but each year will also add to their demoralisation and to their danger. It is impossible to say from what quarter of the compass the clouds may first rise, or which of the several dangers that threaten them they will have first to meet and to oppose by their energies. At present, the people, or majority, have an undue power, which will yearly increase, and their despotism will be more severe in proportion. If they sell their birthright (which they will not do until the population is much increased, and the higher classes are sufficiently wealthy to purchase, although their freedom will be lost) they will have a better chance of happiness and social order. But a protracted war would be the most fatal to their institutions, as it would, in all probability, end in the dismemberment of the Union, and the wresting of their power from the people by the bayonets of a dictator.

The removal of the power and population to the West, the rapid increase of the coloured population, are other causes of alarm and dread; but, allowing that all these dangers are steered clear of, there is one (a more remote one indeed, but more certain), from which it has no escape— that is, the period when, from the increase of population, the division shall take place between the poor and the rich, which no law against entail will ever prevent, and which must be fatal to a democracy.

Mr Sanderson, in his "Sketches of Paris," observes—"If we can retain our democracy when our back woodlands are filled up; when New York and Philadelphia have become a London and Paris; when the land shall be covered with its multitudes, struggling for a scanty living, or with passions excited by luxurious habits and appetites. If we can then maintain our universal suffrage and our liberty, it will be fair and reasonable enough in us to set ourselves up for the imitation of others. Liberty, as far as we yet know her, is not fitted to the condition of these populous and luxurious countries. Her household gods are of clay, and her dwelling where the icy gales of Alleghany sing through the crevices of her hut."

I have observed, in my introduction to the first three volumes of this work, that our virtues and our vices are mainly to be traced to the form of government, climate, and circumstances, and I think I can show that the vices of the Americans are chiefly to be attributed to their present form of government.

The example of the Executive is most injurious. It is insatiable in its ambition, regardless of its faith, corrupt in the highest degree; never legislating for morality, but always for expediency. This is the first cause of the low standard of morals; the second is the want of an aristocracy, to set an example and give the tone to society. These are followed by the errors incident to the voluntary system of religion, and a democratical education. To these must be superadded the want of moral courage, arising from the dread of public opinion, and the natural tendency of a democratic form of government to excite the spirit of gain, as the main-spring of action, and the summum bonum of existence.

Dr Channing observes—"Our present civilisation is characterised and tainted by a devouring greediness of wealth; and a cause which asserts right against wealth, must stir up bitter opposition, especially in cities where this divinity is most adored." "The passion for gain is every where sapping pure and generous feeling, and every where raises up bitter foes against any reform which may threaten to turn aside a stream of wealth. I sometimes feel as if a great social revolution were necessary to break up our present mercenary civilisation, in order that Christianity, now repelled by the almost universal worldliness, may come into new contact with the soul, and may reconstruct society after its own pure and disinterested principles." Channing's Letter to Birney, 1837.

All the above evils may be traced to the nature of their institutions; and I hold it as an axiom, that the chief end of government is the happiness, social order, and morality of the people; that no government, however perfect in theory, can be good which in practice demoralises those who are subjected to it. Never was there a nation which commenced with brighter prospects; the experiment has been made and it has failed; this is not their fault. They still retain all the qualities to constitute a great nation, and a great nation, or assemblage of nations, they will eventually become. At present, all is hidden in a futurity much too deep for any human eye to penetrate; they progress fast in wealth and power, and as their weight increases, so will their speed be accelerated, until their own rapid motion will occasion them to split into fragments, each fragment sufficiently large to compose a nation of itself. What may be the eventual result of this convulsion, what may be the destruction, the loss of life, the chaotic scenes of strife and contention, before the portions may again be restored to order under new institutions, it is as impossible to foresee as it is to decide upon the period at which it may take place; but one thing is certain, that come it will, and that every hour of increase of greatness and prosperity only adds to the more rapid approach of the danger, and to the important lesson which the world will receive.

I have not written this book for the Americans; they have hardly entered my thoughts during the whole time that I have been employed upon it, and I am perfectly indifferent either to their censure or their praise. I went over to America well-inclined towards the people, and anxious to ascertain the truth among so many conflicting opinions. I did expect to find them a people more virtuous and moral than our own, but I confess on other points I had formed no opinions; the results of my observations I have now laid before the English public, for whom only they have been written down. Within these last few years, that is, since the passing of the Reform Bill, we have made rapid strides towards democracy, and the cry of the multitude is still for more power, which our present rulers appear but too willing to give them. I consider that the people of England have already as much power as is consistent with their happiness and with true liberty, and that any increase of privilege would be detrimental to both. My object in writing these pages is, to point out the effects of a democracy upon the morals, the happiness, and the due apportionment of liberty to all classes; to shew that if, in the balance of rights and privileges, the scale should turn on one side or the other, as it invariably must in this world, how much safer it is, how much more equitable I may add, it is that it should preponderate in favour of the intelligent and enlightened portion of the nation. I wish that the contents of these pages may render those who are led away by generous feelings and abstract ideas of right, to pause before they consent to grant to those below them what may appear to be a boon, but will in reality prove a source of misery and danger to all parties—that they may confirm the opinions of those who are wavering, and support those who have true ideas as to the nature of government. If I have succeeded in the most trifling degree in effecting these ends, which I consider vitally important to the future welfare of this country—if I have any way assisted the cause of Conservatism—I am content, and shall consider that my time and labour have not been thrown away.