“The principles of the Revolution taught the inhabitants of
this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting
their liberty, or, in other words, _their right to a share in
the government_. That portion of the sovereignty to which each
individual is entitled can never be too highly prized. It is
that for which we have fought and bled.”[145]
More could not be said in the few words. But it is when Hamilton comes
to consider the National Constitution and to expound its provisions,
that, while recognizing the anomalous condition of Slavery, and
exposing what he calls “the compromising expedient of the Constitution”
by which “_the slave_ is divested of two fifths of _the man_,” he yet
declares “the equal level of free inhabitants,” and announces, “that,
if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, _the
negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation
with the other inhabitants_.” Here is this important text,--which has
additional authority when it is considered that it was attributed also
to Madison, and indeed claimed by him, who thus acknowledged the
sentiments as his own:--
“It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed
the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied
to them in the computation of numbers; AND IT IS ADMITTED,
THAT, IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL
SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS.”[146]
Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are restored to the
rights which have been taken away,--in other words, if they become
freemen,--they will be on the same _equal level_, and entitled to
the same _equal share_ of representation with the other inhabitants.
The two ideas of Equality and a Right to Representation, so early
and constantly avowed by the Fathers, are here again recognized as
essential conditions of government; and this is the true definition of
a Republic.
With these great representative names to illustrate the American idea
I might close the catalogue. Surely this is sufficient. But there are
others, whose authority cannot be disregarded.
* * * * *
Here is the testimony of that inflexible spirit, who had thought and
acted much, Samuel Adams, in a letter to his kinsman, John Adams:--
“That the sovereignty _resides in the people_ is a political
doctrine which I have never heard an American politician
seriously deny.… _We, the people_, is the style of the Federal
Constitution. They adopted it; and, conformably to it, they
delegate the exercise of the powers of government to particular
persons, who, after short intervals, resign their powers _to
the people_, and they will reëlect them, or appoint others, as
they think fit.”[147]
Here also is the testimony of another Republican, who signed the
Declaration of Independence, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John Adams:--
“What especially denominates it a _Republic_ is its dependence
on the _public_ or _people at large_, without any hereditary
powers. But it is not of so much importance by what appellation
the government is distinguished as to have it well constituted
_to secure the rights and advance the happiness of the
community_.”[148]
There also was John Adams himself, who was the least distinct of all
the Fathers on this question; but we find in the Preface to his Defence
of the American Constitutions a passage full of prophetic meaning:--
“Thirteen governments, thus founded on _the natural authority
of the people alone_, without a pretence of miracle or mystery,
and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that
whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor
of _the rights of mankind_.”[149]
Here is a plain assertion that our Thirteen States were founded “on the
natural authority of the people alone,” and that they were destined to
spread over all North America.
Charles Pinckney, in a speech on the adoption of the Constitution,
speaks for South Carolina:--
“The doctrine of representation is the fundamental of a
republic.… As to the United Netherlands, it is such a confusion
of states and assemblies, that I have always been at loss what
species of government to term it. According to my idea of the
word, it is not a republic; for I conceive it as indispensable
in a republic that all authority should flow from the people.…
A republic is _where the people at large_, either collectively
or by representation, form the Legislature.”[150]
Luther Martin, an able representative of Maryland in the Convention,
while vindicating a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves,
said:--
“The privilege of importing them was unreasonable; and it
was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and
dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature
in the Constitution.”[151]
Afterwards, in his address to the Legislature of Maryland, he announced
that both in the Committee and in the Convention he was influenced by
the argument,--
“that Slavery is inconsistent with _the genius of
republicanism_, and has a tendency to destroy those principles
on which it is supported, _as it lessens the sense of the
Equal Rights of mankind_, and habituates us to tyranny and
oppression.”[152]
Thus was a “sense of the Equal Rights of mankind” one of the principles
on which Republicanism rested.
And here is one more word from Virginia: it is Colonel Mason, who
always spoke with so much point:--
“The true idea, in his opinion, was, that _every man_, having
evidence of attachment to and permanent common interest
with the society, ought to share in all its rights and
privileges.”[153]
Again we have a plain recognition of the Revolutionary idea.
* * * * *
Here, also, is another authority. I quote a Virginia writer on
Government,--John Taylor, of Caroline:--
“The end of the guaranty is ‘a republican form of government.’
The meaning of this expression is not so unsettled here as
in other countries, because we agree in one descriptive
character as essential to the existence of a republican
form of government. _This is representation. We do not
admit a government to be even in its origin republican,
unless it is instituted by representation_; nor do we allow
it to be so, unless its legislation is also founded upon
representation.”[154]
I close this array, illustrative of opinion, with the words of Daniel
Webster, in harmony with the rest:--
“Now, fellow-citizens, I will venture to state, in a few
words, what I take these American political principles in
substance to be. They consist, as I think, in the first place,
in the establishment of popular governments on the basis of
representation.… _This representation is to be made as equal as
circumstances will allow._”[155]