CONSTITUTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS.

71

We need not here examine how honest these chronic constitutional scruples of the minority for the time being. were. It is sufficient to mention the fact that for over seventy years all parties have followed these tactics when they found themselves on the side of the opposition.' The bearing, therefore, of all the general provisions of the constitution, and even of its separate terms, was, in the course of time, determined in the most opposite senses. There were a number of persons in every congress observant enough to notice this fact. But they never followed up the question far enough to ascertain whether this phenomenon was not to be accounted for in part by a fundamental defect in the constitution itself. This would not have been the case, were it not that their thought on the matter was under some heavy pressure from without.

As the country became more democratic, men distinguished in politics became less and less the political leaders of the people. They, indeed, apparently claimed that position, but in fact they went along with the stream, concerned only to swim at the head. Men really independent in thought or action by degrees appeared more rarely in congress and among politicians outside of it." The idea of representation lost its original and only

We read in an article in the Nation, Nov. 7th, 1872, (No. 384, p. 300): "In spite of its supposed [!] precision, and its subjection to judicial construction, our constitution has always been indirectly made to serve the turn of that sort of legislation which its friends call progressive and its enemies call revolutionary, quite as effectively as though congress had the omnipotence of parliament. The theory of latent powers to carry out those granted has been found elastic enough to satisfy almost any party demands in time of peace, to say nothing of its enormous extensions in time of war." Since the end of the civil war admissions of this nature are found more frequently, a happy sign of progress towards a clearer judgment among thinking people.

2 Hamilton, as early as 1800, writes to King: "In the two houses of congress we have a decided majority. But the dread of unpopularity is likely to paralyze it." Hamilton, Works, VI., p. 416.

justifiable character, and was prostituted to this, that representatives should be the mere mouthpieces of their immediate constituents.1 In particulars it was necessary to leave them sufficient room, but the unripe political notions, the preconceived opinions, the vague instincts, the arbitrary sympathies and antipathies of the majority of these constituents, became the sub-structure of their labors. From the beginning of Washington's administration, Jefferson's adherents preached that the maxim vox populi, vox dei was a theoretical truth applicable under all circumstances. By degrees it became the actual rule of politicians, until finally it would have been considered not only folly, but a crime against the spirit of republican institutions, to defend one's own dissenting opinion against the vox populi, once it had pronounced with any degree of definiteness on a given proposition. Idealistic doctrinarianism and demagogism had begun the work; the moral cowardice and pusillanimous self-interest of politicians continued it, until finally it seldom occurred that even morally strong and independent thinkers approached questions of the nature mentioned above in a skeptical spirit, or that they considered them as questions at all. The tendency to the creation of political dogmas kept pace with the development of democracy.

At the head of all these dogmas-those of natural rights and the social contract in part excepted-stood the supremacy of the constitution. Only a few, like Macon of North Carolina, whose independence savored of affectation, ventured to preserve the tone in which they had spoken in

1 This tendency was very evident, even in the debates of Nov., 1791, when the proportion of representatives was fixed. See especially the speech of Page, of Virginia. Benton's Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, I., p. 325. The same may be said of the debate on the assumption by the Union of the debts contracted by the states during the revolutionary war. Benton, I., passim.

CHANGE IN FEDERALIST FEELING.

73

1787 and 1788. The opposition of the anti-Federalists, as already remarked, now took the form of a pretended struggle for the constitution.2 Experience soon taught the leaders that these tactics would insure them the readier and more energetic support of the masses of the people. When the opposition had assumed this tone it was difficult for the Federalists not to assume it also. At first, part of them took the position which Hamilton had taken, and saw in the constitution the best that could be accomplished under the circumstances of the time; and others professed themselves satisfied because it was free from the essential defects of the articles of confederation. They were far removed from unconditional admiration. Their entire struggle for its ratification bore the mark of a defense against unjust attacks. They lavished relatively little direct praise on the constitution; and when they did, it was most frequently in the shape of a comparison with the articles of confederation. Only with reluctance did the Federalists surrender this reserved attitude. But they could not entirely resist the pressure. Their adherents among the masses of the people were not able to understand how they could continue cool critics of the constitution they had planned, the adoption of which was due solely to their efforts, while

1 Fisher Ames writes to Wolcott, Sept. 2, 1795: "Some opinions are general and well established: admiration of our constitution and gov. ernment," etc. Gibbs, Mem. of Wolcott, I., p. 229.

2 The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were the first official declaration of principles on which the doctrine of state rights was built. We quote from the Virginia resolutions: "Resolved, That the general assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the constitution of the United States." And later: "That the good people of the commonwealth, having ever felt and continuing to feel . . . the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is a pledge of mutual friendship and the instrument of mutual happiness." In like manner, the Kentucky resolutions declare that the state is sincerely anxious for its [the constitution's] preservation." Wash's. Writ., IX., pp. 318, 319.

the anti-Federalists were preparing a shrine for it on the high altar of the temple of freedom.

A problem of this kind was then, and would be to-day, of much greater practical significance in the United States. than, for instance, in England or in Germany; because in some respects the political thought of Americans is much more superficial and immature. In political questions of a concrete nature, the Americans are on an average more competent judges than any people on the continent of Europe. The political institutions of the country, its social and especially its economic relations, educate them from the cradle to independent thought on all questions involving material interests, and encourage them to summon their whole intellectual strength for their solution. But in the wearing struggles of daily life new problems of this character continually arise, and almost exhaust their intellectual strength. Their energy of mind is not in consequence great enough to give much depth to their thoughts on political problems of a general nature. The disposition towards generalization is sufficiently developed, but their observations are neither various, nor long, nor reliable enough to warrant inductions of any real value. Halftrue and vague ideas are therefore raised by them to the dignity of unimpeachable principles. These are appealed to on every occasion, so that they rapidly rise to the dignity of sovereign laws. And the more they assume this character, the stronger does the conviction become rooted that they are the stars by which the ship of state should be steered. The further the idea of democracy was pushed, first in theory and then in practice, the more did the doctrine of the equality of all men become perverted

1 The masses of the population in the southern states are here excepted. Slavery has in this, as in all other respects, produced an abnormal state of affairs. Neither do we here include adopted citizens, although in the upper strata they very soon become assimilated, so far as this matter is concerned, to the native Americans.

A NATIONAL FETISH.

75

in the minds of the masses into the equal capacity of all men to decide on political questions of every kind. The principle of mere numbers steadily gained ground.

The political philosophy of the masses was comprised in these vague maxims. They clung to them with all the self-complacent obstinacy of the lowest and most numerous body of the working classes. They were nowhere more sensitive than here. Whoever desired their favor dared not touch this idol of theirs, and could scarcely ignore it unpunished. The fetish had been raised up for the worship of the masses by their leaders, and the masses in turn compelled their leaders to fall down and adore it. Under no form of government is it so dangerous to erect a political idol as in a democratic republic; for once erected, it is the political sin against the Holy Spirit to lay hands upon it.

The history of the United States affords the strongest and most varied proof of these assertions. Not only the quarrels of 1787 and 1788, but also the circumstances under which the constitution originated, would have inclined one to believe anything rather than that the constitution would be chosen as the chief idol of the people.

The brilliant contrast it presents to the articles of confederation is not a sufficient explanation of this, not even if it were granted that the extraordinary economic prosperity of the country was due to it to the unmeasured extent claimed by Americans themselves.'

The current view places the labors of the Philadelphia convention in a totally false light, but the difficulties that convention had to surmount were so great that they can scarcely be exaggerated. The conflict of views and of real or

1 "It is to be feared we have grown giddy with good fortune; attributing the greatness of our prosperity to our wisdom rather than to a course of events and a guidance over which we had no influence." Quincy in the house of representatives, April 19, 1808. Benton's Deb. of Congress, III., p. 700.