“_Resolved, N. C. D._, That this House think it their duty thus firmly
to assert with modesty and decency their _inherent rights_, that their
posterity may learn and know that it was not with their consent and
acquiescence that _any taxes_ should be levied on them by any persons
but their own representatives.”[111]
The controversy proceeded. At the invitation of Massachusetts, moved
by Otis, a Congress assembled at New York in October, 1765, having
delegates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina, which,
after a prolonged session, adopted a declaration of colonial rights and
grievances, where it is declared:--
“That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people,
and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be
imposed on them _but with their own consent, given personally
or by their representatives_.
“That the people of these Colonies are not, and from their
local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of
Commons in Great Britain.”[112]
At last the Stamp Act was repealed. But the pretension of taxation was
suspended rather than abandoned. A ministerial partisan continued to
urge the scheme in unscrupulous language:--
“All countries unaccustomed to taxes are at first violently
prepossessed against them, though the price which they give for
their liberty: like an ox untamed to the yoke, they show at
first a very stubborn neck, but by degrees become docile and
yield a willing obedience.… America must be taxed.”[113]
As time advanced, the old audacity was revived, and, under the lead
of the reckless Charles Townshend, taxes were imposed by Parliament
on tea, glass, lead, paper, and painters’ colors. The old opposition
in the Colonies was revived also, and taxation without representation
was again denounced. Committees of correspondence were established,
and the work of organization began. The whole country was in a fever.
Massachusetts, as in times past, did not hesitate to proclaim the true
principle. At a town-meeting of Boston in 1772, there was a declaration
of rights, “which no man or body of men, consistently with their own
rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves
give up or take away from others”; and here we meet again familiar
words:--
“The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part
of his property without his consent in person or by his
representatives.”[114]
Against all Parliamentary taxation, as often as it showed itself, this
impenetrable buckler was lifted. But the mother country was perverse.
Ship-loads of tea arrived. At Boston the tea was thrown into the dock.
The Colonies entered into an agreement of non-importation. Then came
troops, and the Boston Port Bill, by which this harbor was vindictively
closed against commerce. The whole country, including even South
Carolina, made common cause with Massachusetts. Gadsden exclaimed,
“Massachusetts sounded the trumpet, but to Carolina is it owing that it
was attended to.”[115] And Virginia exclaimed, “_We will never be taxed
but by our own representatives._ This is the great badge of Freedom.…
Whether the people in Boston were warranted by justice, when they
destroyed the tea, we know not; but this we know, that the Parliament,
by their proceedings, have made us and all North America parties in
the present dispute.”[116] Meanwhile more troops arrived. All things
portended strife; and yet the colonists did not ask for independence.
They only asked for rights, insisting always that there should be no
taxation without representation. “The patriots of this Province,” said
John Adams in 1774, “desire nothing new; they wish only to keep their
old privileges. They were for one hundred and fifty years allowed to
tax themselves, and govern their internal concerns as they thought
best. Parliament governed their trade as they thought fit. This plan
they wish may continue forever.”[117] Thus stood the two parties face
to face.
Then came the Continental Congress, which at once put forth
resolutions, where, after claiming the enjoyment of life, liberty, and
property, as natural rights, it was insisted that the colonists could
be bound by no law to which they had not consented by representatives.
Here was the original programme of James Otis: first, the rights of
men, according to Natural Law; and, secondly, the principle that
government, including of course taxation, depended on the consent of
the governed. “_The foundation_ of English Liberty and _of all free
government_,” said these resolutions, “is a right in the people to
participate in their legislative council.”[118] In harmony with these
resolutions were the several addresses of the Continental Congress,--to
the people of Great Britain, to the inhabitants of the Province of
Quebec, and to the king himself,--always pleading for Human Rights in
the largest sense. The address to the people of Great Britain begins
by an appeal for “the rights of men and the blessings of Liberty,” and
then insists “that no power on earth has a right to take our property
from us without our consent.”[119] The address to the inhabitants of
the Province of Quebec, in similar spirit, says: “_The first grand
right is that of the people having a share in their own government by
their representatives chosen by themselves_, and, in consequence, of
being ruled by laws which they themselves approve, not by edicts of
men over whom they have no control. This is a bulwark surrounding and
defending their property.”[120] And the petition to the king has the
same key-note: “Duty to your Majesty, and regard for the preservation
of ourselves and our posterity, _the primary obligations of Nature
and society_, command us to entreat your royal attention.”[121] Thus
constantly, down to the last moment, did our fathers set forth the
principles they sought to establish as essential to free government.
Thus constantly did they testify to the cause for which I now plead.
Answering voices came back from England, announcing the principles in
issue. The right of taxation was asserted; but there were many who
disguised the tyranny by assuming that the Colonies were “virtually
represented.” Perhaps that spirit of legal technicality which is
satisfied by form at the expense of reason was never more strikingly
illustrated than in the argument of Sir James Marriott, the Admiralty
Judge, who gravely insisted, in the House of Commons, that England
“had an undoubted right to tax America, because she was represented by
the members for the County of Kent, of which the thirteen provinces
were a part or parcel, for in their charters they were to hold of
the manor of Greenwich in Kent.”[122] The whole pretension had been
scouted by the indignant eloquence of Mr. Pitt, afterward Lord Chatham.
“The idea,” said he, “of a _virtual representation_ of America in
this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the
head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation.”[123] As
the controversy continued, and especially as those masterly state
papers, the addresses of the Continental Congress, reached England,
the ministers of the king were put on the defensive. They retained as
advocate none other than Samuel Johnson, who, for “small hire,” lent
the pen which had written “Rasselas,” “The Vanity of Human Wishes,”
and the English Dictionary, to a rancorous attack on the principles of
our fathers. Its concentrated venom was all expressed in the title,
“Taxation no Tyranny.” Another pamphlet appeared in reply, with the
epigram, “Resistance no Rebellion,” embodying the idea, that, where
there is taxation without representation, resistance is justifiable;
and thus was issue joined at London. This was in 1775. Already the
“embattled farmers” had gathered at Lexington and Bunker Hill; already
Washington had drawn his sword at Cambridge, as commander-in-chief and
generalissimo of the new-born armies; already war had begun. At last,
to the defiant watchword, “Taxation no Tyranny,” hurled from London,
our fathers returned that other defiant watchword, “Independence.” But
they did not turn their backs upon the principles asserted throughout
the long controversy. Independence was the means to an end, and that
end was nothing less than a Republic, with Liberty and Equality as
animating principles, where government stood on the consent of the
governed, or, which is the same thing, where there should be no
taxation without representation: for here was the distinctive feature
of American institutions.
* * * * *
2. The principles heralded through fifteen years of controversy were
not forgotten when Independence was declared: and here I come to the
national declarations of the Fathers.
It sometimes happens that men fail in support of the cause to which
they are pledged, or content themselves with something less than
the truth. But not so with our fathers. In declaring Independence
they continued loyal to their constant vows. The natural rights of
all men, and the consent of the people as the only just foundation
of government, which James Otis first announced, which Samuel Adams
maintained with severe simplicity, which Patrick Henry vindicated
even against the cry of “Treason,” and which had been affirmed by
legislative bodies and public meetings, were embodied in the opening
words of the Declaration. There they stand, like a sublime overture
to the new Republic, interpreting, inspiring, and filling it with
transforming power.
“We hold these truths to be _self-evident_: that _all men are
created equal_; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, _deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed_.”
Nor did these declarations proceed from the National Congress alone.
The States spoke also in their Bills of Rights.
Foremost is the Equality of All Men. Of course, in a declaration of
rights, no such supreme folly was intended as that all men are created
equal in form or capacity, bodily or mental,--but simply that they are
created equal in rights. This is grandest of the self-evident truths
announced, leading and governing all the rest. Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness are among inalienable rights; but they are all
in subordination to that primal truth. Here is the starting-point of
the whole; and the end is like the starting-point. Announcing that
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,
the Declaration repeats the same proclamation of Equal Rights. Thus
is Equality the Alpha and the Omega, wherein all other rights are
embraced. Men may not have a natural right to certain things, but most
clearly they have a natural right to _impartial laws_, without which
justice, being the end and aim of government, must fail. Equality in
rights is the first of rights. Because these self-evident truths,
beginning with Equality, had been set at nought by Great Britain, in
her relations with our fathers, Independence was declared. To these
truths, therefore, was the new Government solemnly dedicated, as it
assumed its separate and equal station among the powers of the earth.
Do you ask for the definition of Republic? Here it is, by patriot
lexicographers, whose authority none of us can question.
As the War of Independence began with a declaration of principles,
so it ended with a like declaration. At its successful close, the
Continental Congress, in an Address to the States, by the pen of James
Madison, thus announced the objects for which it had been waged, and
thus supplied another definition of the new government:--
“Let it be remembered that it has ever been the pride and boast
of America, _that the rights for which she contended were
the rights of human nature_. By the blessing of the Author
of these rights on the means exerted for their defence, they
have prevailed against all opposition, and _form the basis_
of thirteen independent States. No instance has heretofore
occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur,
in which the _unadulterated forms of Republican Government_ can
pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by
their fruits. In this view, the citizens of the United States
are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a
political society.”[124]
Such, also, was the sublime sentiment promulgated by Washington from
his camp, in a general order, near the same date, announcing the close
of the war, where he declares his “rapture” in the national prospects,
and the three-fold happiness for all “who have assisted in protecting
_the rights of human nature_.”[125] It was for “the rights of human
nature” that our fathers went forth to battle, and these rights are
proclaimed to “form the basis of thirteen independent States.” But
supreme among these is Equality, including of course the equal right of
all to a voice in the Government. And this is the Republic which our
fathers, with pride and boast, then gave as an example to mankind.
The same spirit appears in the National Constitution, which, by its
preamble, asserts practically similar sentiments:--
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect union, _establish justice_, insure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.”
Thus was the National Constitution ordained, not to create an oligarchy
or aristocracy, not to exclude certain persons from the pale of its
privileges, not to organize _inequality of rights_ in any form,
but to “establish justice,” which is Equality,--to “insure domestic
tranquillity,” which is vain without justice,--to “provide for the
common defence,” which is the defence of all,--to “promote the general
welfare,” which is the welfare of all,--and to “secure the blessings of
liberty” to all the people and their posterity, which is giving to all
the complete enjoyment of rights central among which is Equality. Here,
then, is another authoritative definition.
Thus has our country testified to its idea of a Republic, not only
throughout long days of controversy, but in national declarations,
being in themselves monumental acts.
* * * * *
3. From these national declarations I come now to the _Opinions of the
Fathers_. Here you see how these same principles have been sustained
by eminent characters, whose names are historic, all testifying to the
government they founded and upheld. In their weighty words you find a
definition, constantly repeated, in harmony with all the promises of
the Fathers, whether in controversy or in solemn instruments which are
the very title-deeds of the Republic.
* * * * *
I begin with Benjamin Franklin, who saw all questions of Government
with a surer instinct than any other person in our history. As early as
1736, while still a young man, he wrote an article, which was published
in the Pennsylvania Gazette, containing these words:--
“Popular Governments have not been framed without the wisest
reasons. It seemed highly fitting that the conduct of
magistrates, _created by and for the good of the whole_, should
be made liable to the inspection and animadversion of _the
whole_.”[126]
It is for _the good of the whole_, and not for an odious oligarchy or
an aristocratic class, that our patriot speaks, and in these words
is foreshadowed the idea of a republican government. But it was in
discussions, after Otis had hurled his flaming bolt, that we find a
fuller and more precise definition. Here it is, as adopted, if not
written, by Franklin:--
“That _every man_ of the commonalty (excepting infants, insane
persons, and criminals) is, of common right, and by the laws of
God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty.
“_That liberty, or freedom, consists in having an actual share
in the appointment of those who frame the laws_, and who are to
be the guardians of every man’s life, property, and peace: for
the _all_ of one man is as dear to him as the _all_ of another;
and the poor man has an _equal_ right, but _more_ need, to have
representatives in the Legislature than the rich one.
“That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing
of representatives _do not enjoy liberty, but are
absolutely enslaved to those who have votes, and to their
representatives_: for to be enslaved is to have governors
whom _other men have set over us_, and be subject to laws
_made by the representatives of others_, without having
had representatives of our own to give consent in _our_
behalf.”[127]
In these emphatic words is a complete vindication of the _equal right_
of representation, as essential to free government,--so much so, that,
where this does not exist, Liberty does not exist.
Jefferson followed Franklin in the same vein, but with greater fervor.
The author of the Declaration of Independence could not do otherwise.
Constantly he testifies to his idea of a Republic. Thus he wrote to
Alexander von Humboldt, under date of June 13, 1817, affirming the
rights of the majority as “the first principle of Republicanism,” and
assuming the principle of Equal Rights:--
“The first principle of Republicanism is, that the _lex majoris
partis_ is the fundamental law of every society of individuals
_of equal rights_. To consider the will of the society enounced
by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is
the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which
is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other
remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military
despotism.”[128]
In another letter, to John Taylor, of Caroline, dated May 28, 1816, he
thus defines a Republic:--
“Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the term _Republic_
is of very vague application in every language. Witness the
self-styled Republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice,
Poland. Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite
idea, I would say, purely and simply, it means _a government
by its citizens in mass_, acting directly and personally,
_according to rules established by the majority_,--and that
every other government is more or less republican in proportion
as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of
the direct action of the citizens.”[129]
Here again, while confessing the unquestionable vagueness of the term
according to old examples, he assumes that in a republic all citizens
must have a voice. And again, in the same letter, he thus indignantly
condemns denial of representation:--
“And also that one half of our brethren who fight and pay taxes
are excluded, like Helots, from the rights of representation,
as if society were instituted for the soil, and not for
the men inhabiting it, _or one half of these could dispose
of the rights and the will of the other half without their
consent_.”[130]
Thus did he scout the whole wretched pretension of oligarchy and
monopoly by which citizens are deprived of equal rights.
To these may be added his earliest and latest declarations on this
important question. The earliest is in his “Notes on Virginia,” written
in 1781, where he recognizes “a reciprocation of right” as a presiding
principle:--
“When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental,
that laws, to be just, must give _a reciprocation of right_:
that without this they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct,
founded in force, and not in conscience.”[131]
The latest declaration was in 1826, the year of his death. It is in
a paper containing some of his most intimate opinions. Here he bears
testimony to “_equality_ among our citizens” as “essential to the
maintenance of republican government.”[132] These are among his dying
words.
* * * * *
Madison was colder in nature than Jefferson; but they were associates
in opinion, as in political life. In the debates on the National
Constitution the former condemned the denial of rights on account of
color:--
“We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most
enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive
dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[133]
Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he uses the following
language:--
“_The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental
articles of republican government_, and ought not to be left
to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgment of
this right has been the mode in which _aristocracies_ have been
built on the ruins of popular forms.”[134]
Thus declaring himself against “aristocracies,” he naturally recognized
the true idea; and here he was perplexed by the question of a property
qualification, and the effort to reconcile it with “the right of
suffrage,” which he calls “a fundamental article in republican
constitutions.”[135] In another place, he says of “confining the right
of suffrage to freeholders”: “It violates _the vital principle_ of free
government, that those who are to be bound by laws ought to have a
voice in making them; and the violation would be more strikingly unjust
as the lawmakers become the minority.”[136] Completely recognizing the
great American principle, that just government can stand only on “the
consent of the governed,” he is brought to this conclusion:--
“Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable
that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in
making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the
magistrates who are to administer them.”[137]
In one of the most remarkable chapters of the “Federalist,” Madison
gives expansion to this idea in his formal definition of a Republic:--
“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles
on which different forms of government are established, we
may define a Republic to be, or at least may bestow that
name on, _a government which derives all its powers directly
or indirectly from the great body of the people_, and is
administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure,
for a limited period, or during good behavior. _It is essential
to such a government that it be derived from the great body
of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion_, OR A
FAVORED CLASS OF IT: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles,
exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers,
might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their
government the honorable title of Republic.”[138]
Thus, in few significant words, does this authority teach that a
Republic is a government derived from “the great body of the people,”
and not from “a favored class of it.” Better words could not be found
for the American definition.
I repeat these two conditions of republican government according to
Madison: _First_, the government must be derived from the _great body_
of the people; and, _secondly_, it cannot spring from any _favored
class_.
That the colored race should not be excluded from this definition may
be justly inferred from his remark, already quoted, that “where Slavery
exists the _republican_ theory becomes still more fallacious,”[139]
and also from his correspondence at a later day with Lafayette, whose
devotion to the great principle of Equal Rights was blazoned before
the world. Writing to the latter, November 25, 1820, he said:--
“The Constitutions and laws of the different States are much
at variance in the civic character given to free persons of
color: those of most of the States, not excepting such as have
abolished Slavery, imposing _various disqualifications_, which
_degrade_ them from the rank and rights of white persons.
_All these perplexities develop more and more the dreadful
fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade._”[140]
“Various disqualifications which degrade them”; “dreadful
fruitfulness”: such are some of the terms in which judgment is
recorded. Another letter, also to Lafayette, written as late as
February 1, 1830, says:--
“Outlets for the freed blacks are alone wanted for a rapid
erasure of the blot [of Slavery] from our _Republican
character_.”[141]
Thus, in his opinion, was the treatment of this unhappy people
inconsistent with the “Republican character.”
* * * * *
Hamilton follows with perhaps equal authority. Though approaching
political questions from opposite points of view, we find him uniting
with Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the
definition he would supply:--
“As long as offices are _open to all men_ and _no
constitutional rank_ is established, it is pure
republicanism.”[142]
Not for an oligarchy, but for _all_, is a Republic created. Then again
he testifies for Equal Rights, and against _partial distinctions_:--
“There can be no truer principle than this, that _every
individual of the community at large has an equal right to the
protection of Government_.… We propose _a free government_. Can
it be so, if _partial distinctions_ are maintained?”[143]