found in them some doctrines having a manifest family likeness to
communism, confiscation, and land-nationalisation; but they avail Mr.
Spencer nothing, because he would not condescend to read the chapters
where those revolutionary principles are. If he would bend his brow a
moment and examine them he might find that in this controversy there are
two perplexed philosophers instead of one. In the book before us Mr.
George remarks:
“It is this confusion of Mr. Spencer as to rent and value that has led
him into confusion as to the right of property; and that, at first, at
least prevented him from seeing that to secure the equal rights of men
to land, _it is not necessary that society should take formal possession
of land, and let it out_, and consequently, that the difficulties he
anticipated in taking possession of improved land were imaginary.”
But, in “Progress and Poverty,” Chapter II, he said:
“We should satisfy the law of justice, we should meet all economic
requirements, by at one stroke abolishing all private titles, declaring
all land public property, and _letting it out to the highest bidders in
lots to suit_, under such conditions as would safely guard the right to
improvements.”
The italics are ours, directing the attention to apparent contradictions
which it is for Mr. George to reconcile. And, if English words have
any meaning, “abolishing all private titles” means confiscation; and
“declaring all land public property and letting it out to the highest
bidders,” is land-nationalisation; at least, the ordinary reader
may innocently think so, yet Mr. George declares that he is not a
land-nationalisationist.
As a personal defense and explanation Mr. George has a right to say that
he is not a land-nationalisationist, or a communist, or an “ist” of any
other kind, and we are bound to take his word for it, but in this dispute
that matter is wholly immaterial. The question before the meeting is
this, Is Mr. George’s book a land-nationalisationist or is it not? Is it
a confiscationist or not? In “Progress and Poverty” Mr. George explains
his meaning thus:
“I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate property in land.
The first would be unjust, the second needless. Let the individuals who
now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are
pleased to call _their_ land. Let them continue to call it _their_ land.
Let them buy and sell and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave
them the shell if we take the kernel. _It is not necessary to confiscate
land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent._”
The italics are by Mr. George; and a little farther on, he says;
“That is the first step upon which the practical struggle must be made.
When the hare is once caught and killed, cooking him will follow as a
matter of course.”
And several years afterwards, in “Protection or Free Trade,” page 302,
Mr. George describes the artful mechanism of the snare by which the hare
is to be caught and killed:
“Now it is evident that, in order to take for the use of the government
the whole income arising from land just as effectively as it could be
taken by formally appropriating and letting out the land, it is only
necessary to abolish, one after another, all taxes now levied, and to
increase the tax on land values till it reaches as near as may be the
full annual value of the land.”
In that paragraph “government” is merely another word for “nation,” and
the taking away from private owners all the lands of the country “for the
use of the government” is land-nationalisation, whether the taking be
done boldly by imperial decree, or furtively by taxing it up to its “full
value” and out of the hands of its owners.
The discrimination above made must apply to Herbert Spencer as well as
to Henry George. Mr. Spencer has a right to qualify and explain as much
as he pleases; he may properly say what he thinks now about the right of
land-ownership, but the question at issue is this, What are the opinions
of “Social Statics” upon the land question? Are they not in principle,
and very nearly in expression the opinions of “Progress and Poverty”?
It is not to be denied that “Progress and Poverty” found moral support
in “Social Statics.” In fact, the disciples of Henry George, whenever
their doctrines were assailed, brought Herbert Spencer into the field as
a reinforcement. This, at last, gave Mr. Spencer great annoyance, and
in a moment of irritation he determined even by a qualified recantation
to withdraw the reserve brigade on which “Progress and Poverty” had so
long depended for assistance. Hence, his letters to the _Times_ and the
_St. James’s Gazette_, and the modification of his views which appears
in “Justice.” He tried to do this by dropping Mr. George to the ground,
while endeavoring to stand on consistent feet himself; and this it is
that inspires the vehement criticism of Mr. George.
With a scalpel most logically keen Mr. George has dissected Mr. Spencer’s
philosophy of land, and with almost Indian exultation he exposes its
eccentricities and contradictions. As was inevitable, for we cannot
get along without it, the old familiar Galileo moral is brought in by
Mr. George to prove that “still it moves.” He is right; for if it is
ethically and politically true, as declared by Mr. Spencer in 1850, “that
equity does not permit property in land,” it will be true forever, and no
extremity of recantation can make it false. The attempt of Mr. Spencer
to show by duplicate metaphysics that his later opinions concerning land
are not inconsistent with the occult meaning of “Social Statics,” is
a failure. It cannot stand a moment before the searching analysis and
legible comparisons of Mr. George.
The attempt to resolve a concrete subject, such as government ownership
of land, into abstract terms of justice limited or expanded by the right
of some private person to the house on the land, and the barn, and the
well, and the fences, and the apple-trees, and other appurtenances,
corporeal and incorporeal, has involved Mr. George himself, as well as
Mr. Spencer, in some confusion of thought, and has entangled both of
them in varieties of statement not easy to reconcile. This might be due
to obscure definitions and multiplied explanations, or to changes of
opinion, but Mr. George asserts that Mr. Spencer’s inconsistencies are
the result of moral and intellectual dishonesty, prompting him to explain
away his principles to propitiate the landlords and other aristocratic
persons who admitted him into their high society after he became eminent,
and before they knew that his philosophy denied the right of private
property in land.
In his letter to the _Times_, apologising for “Social Statics,” Mr.
Spencer said:
“The work referred to—“Social Statics”—was intended to be a system of
Political Ethics—absolute political ethics, or that which ought to be, as
distinguished from relative political ethics, or that which is at present
the nearest practical approach to it.”
And then the philosopher becomes a politician and frames for the landed
and the landless a moral code, ambidextrous and elastic as a party
platform. Duty, justice, right, and truth, lose all their absolute
qualities, and become relative to expediency and our own convenience.
He teaches us to oppose wrongs until they become vested rights and then
defend them. He makes ethics changeable as our coats, and the man who can
afford two suits of clothes may have two suits of ethics, an “absolute”
suit for Sundays and a “relative” suit for every day; an “abstract”
suit for wearing about the house, and a “practical” suit for business
purposes. He may wear a suit of “pure” ethics when buying, and a suit
of “applied” ethics when selling; and so, at last, by those harlequin
morals, it happens that what we ought to do has no relation at all to
“that which ought to be.” Those pure subtleties and applied subterfuges
make Mr. Spencer an easy mark for the indignant sarcasm of Mr. George,
who shows what Mr. Spencer thought of absolute and relative ethics when
he said in “Social Statics”:
“When a man admits that an act is ‘theoretically just,’ he admits it to
be that which, in strict duty, should be done. By ‘true to principle’ he
means in harmony with the conduct decreed for us. The course which he
calls ‘abstractedly right,’ he believes to be the appointed way to human
happiness. There is no escape. The expressions mean this or they mean
nothing.”
The book is written in an angry vein, and the nicknames “traitor,”
“juggler,” “apostate,” and the like, add nothing to the value of its
argument; they only give bitterness to the censure. They are not to be
commended, although they ought to be excused, for they sprang out of “a
tempest of provocation.” Mr. George has been fighting under the banner of
Herbert Spencer, and he feels like a soldier whose general deserts him in
the battle and then disowns him altogether.
The only rational explanation of Mr. Spencer’s letters to the _Times_ and
the _St. James’s Gazette_ is that he has radically changed his opinions
about the private ownership of land: and his timid, uncertain, and
equivocal way of saying so makes him look very much like the “perplexed
philosopher” that Mr. George describes. At the same time it must be
noticed that Mr. George himself is not so radical in this last book
as he was in “Progress and Poverty.” His principles appear to be the
same, but in the application of remedies he is milder than he was about
fourteen years ago. When he reaches Mr. Spencer’s age he may be just as
conservative and “perplexed” as that philosopher is now.
M. M. TRUMBULL.
FOOTNOTES:
[85] Mr. Salter’s name for his theory.
[86] Says Mr. Salter: “Idealism (as here stated) is not, however, itself
a solution, being only a clear statement of what the problem is; and for
all that such idealism can say, the problem may be insoluble.”
PERIODICALS.
ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR PSYCHOLOGIE UND PHYSIOLOGIE DER SINNESORGANE.
CONTENTS: Vol. IV. Nos. 4 and 5.
DIE GRUNDEMPFINDUNGEN IN NORMALEN UND ANOMALEN FARBENSYSTEMEN
UND IHRE ITENSITÄTSVERTEILUNG IM SPEKTRUM. By _Arthur König and
Conrad Dieterici_.
IST EINE CEREBRALE ENTSTEHUNG VON SCHWEBUNGEN MÖGLICH? By _Karl
L. Schaefer_.
UEBER EINIGE NEUERE FORTSCHRITTE IN DER ANATOMIE UND
PHYSIOLOGIE DER ARTHROPODENAUGEN. By _Sigmund Fuchs_.
LITTERATURBERICHT.
CONTENTS: Vol. IV. No. 6.
DAS TAPETUM LUCIDUM BEI DURCHLEUCHTUNG DES AUGES. By _Ziem_.
BERICHTIGUNG ZU PROFESSOR MÜNSTERBERGS BEITRÄGEN ZUR
EXPERIMENTELLEN PSYCHOLOGIE, HEFT 4. By _G. E. Müller_.
LITTERATURBERICHT. (Hamburg and Leipsic: Leopold Voss.)
PHILOSOPHISCHE MONATSHEFTE.
CONTENTS: Vol. XXIX. No. 3 and 4.
DIE ÄLTESTE FASSUNG VON MELANCHTHONS ETHIK. By _H. Heineck_.
DIE MODERNE ENERGETIK IN IHRER BEDEUTUNG FÜR DIE
ERKENNTNISSKRITIK, II. By _K. Lasswitz_.
DIE SITTLICHE FRAGE EINE SOCIALE FRAGE, II. By _F. Staudinger_.
JOHANN EDUARD ERDMANN. By _B. Erdmann_.
LITTERATURBERICHT. (Berlin: Dr. R. Salinger.)
VIERTELJAHRSSCHRIFT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTLICHE PHILOSOPHIE.
CONTENTS: Vol. XVI. No. 4.
DIE STATISCHEN FUNCTIONEN DES OHRLABYRINTHES UND IHRE
BEZIEHUNGEN ZU DEN RAUMEMPFINDUNGEN. (Part I.) By _R. Wlassak_.
UEBER VERSCHMELZUNG UND ANALYSE. Eine psychologische Studie.
(Part I.) By _H. Cornelius_.
DIE WICHTIGKEIT DER REPRODUCTIONSGEFÜHLE FÜR DIE ENTWICKLUNG
UND BILDUNG DES MENSCHEN. By _J. Zahlfleisch_.
CONTENTS: Vol. XVII. No. 1.
UEBER DEN BEGRIFF DER WISSENSCHAFT BEI GALILEI. By _A. Riehl_.
DIE STATISCHEN FUNCTIONEN DES OHRLABYRINTHES UND IHRE
BEZIEHUNGEN ZU DEN RAUMEMPFINDUNGEN. (Concluded.) By _R.
Wlassak_.
UEBER VERSCHMELZUNG UND ANALYSE. Eine psychologische Studie.
(Concluded.) By _H. Cornelius_.
WERTHTHEORIE UND ETHIK. (Part I.) By _Chr. Ehrenfels_.
A. VOIGT’S “ELEMENTARE LOGIK” UND MEINE DARLEGUNGEN ZUR LOGIK
DES LOGISCHEN CALCULS. By _E. G. Husserl_. (Leipsic: O. R.
Reisland.)
ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR PHILOSOPHIE UND PHILOSOPHISCHE KRITIK.
CONTENTS: Vol. CI. No. 2.
DOXOGRAPHISCHES ZUR LEHRE VOM ΤΈΛΟΣ. By _A. Döring_.
ERNST PLATNER’S UND KANT’S ERKENNTNISSTHEORIE MIT BESONDERER
BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG VON TETENS UND AENESIDEMUS. By _Dr. Arthur
Wreschner_.
JAHRESBERICHT ÜBER ERSCHEINUNGEN DER PHILOSOPHISCHEN LITTERATUR
IN FRANZÖSISCHER SPRACHE AUS DEN JAHREN 1889 UND 1890. By
_Adolph Lasson_.
RECENSIONEN. (Leipsic: C. E. M. Pfeffer.)
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY.
CONTENTS: Vol. V. No. 2.
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOLUNTARY MOTOR ABILITY. By _Wm. L.
Bryan_.
THE TRAINING OF ANIMALS. By _James E. LeRossignol_, Ph. D.
ON THE JUDGMENT OF ANGLES AND POSITIONS OF LINES. By _Joseph
Jastrow_, Ph. D.
STATISTICS OF “UNCONSCIOUS CEREBRATION.” By _Charles M. Child_.
EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AT WELLESLEY COLLEGE. By _Mary Whiton
Calkins_. (Worcester: J. H. Orpha.)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.
CONTENTS: Vol. III. No. 2.
THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS. _Prof. Franklin H. Giddings._
DID THE ROMANS DEGENERATE? By _Mary Emily Case_.
POLITICAL ECONOMY AND PRACTICAL LIFE. By _Prof. William
Cunningham_.
GERMAN CHARACTER AS REFLECTED IN THE NATIONAL LIFE AND
LITERATURE. By _Richard M. Meyer_, Ph. D.
BOOK REVIEWS. (Philadelphia: _International Journal of Ethics_,
118 South Twelfth Street.)
THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW.
CONTENTS: Vol. II. No. 1.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By _Prof. Otto Pfleiderer_.
AN ANCIENT PESSIMIST. By _Prof. J. Clark Murray_.
THE CONCEPT OF LAW IN ETHICS. By _Prof. F. C. French_.
J. H. LAMBERT. By _Harold Griffing_.
CONTENTS: Vol. II. No. 2.
KANT’S CRITICAL PROBLEM. By _J. G. Schurman_.
EPISTEMOLOGY IN LOCKE AND KANT. By _Prof. Andrew Seth_.
ANTHROPOMETRY AND EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY. By _Prof. E. B.
Titchener_.
DISCUSSIONS: Reality and Idealism. By _David G. Ritchie_ and
_F. C. S. Schiller_.
BOOK REVIEWS. (Boston, New York, Chicago: Ginn & Company.)
THE NEW WORLD.
CONTENTS: Vol. II. No. 5.
THE PLACE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE.
By _Orello Cone_.
THE FOLK-SONG OF ISRAEL IN THE MOUTH OF THE PROPHETS. By _Karl
Budde_.
COSMOPOLITAN RELIGION. By _C. A. Bartol_.
THE ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE PROPHETS. By _A. W. Benn_.
WHITTIER’S SPIRITUAL CAREER. By _John W. Chadwick_.
THE PERSONAL FACTOR IN BIBLICAL INSPIRATION. By _Marvin R.
Vincent_.
ISRAEL IN EGYPT. By _C. H. Toy_.
THE BRIGGS HERESY TRIAL. By _C. R. Gillett_. (Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin & Co.)
REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE.
CONTENTS: Vol. XVII. No. 12.
LE MOUVEMENT PHILOSOPHIQUE EN RUSSIE: II. LA PHILOSOPHIE DE
HEGEL ET LES CERCLES PHILOSOPHIQUES. By _E. Lannes_.
LA COMPOSITION MUSICALE ET LES LOIS GÉNÉRALES DE LA
PSYCHOLOGIE. By _M. Paulhan_.
LA PSYCHOLOGIE DE W. JAMES (2nd article). By _L. Marillier_.
ANALYSES ET COMPTES RENDUS.
CONTENTS: Vol. XVIII. No. 1.
LA PSYCHOLOGIE DE W. JAMES (3d article). By _L. Marillier_.
LA CROYANCE MÉTAPHYSIQUE. By _J. Gourd_.
LA BEAUTÉ PLASTIQUE. By _L. Couturat_.
ANALYSES ET COMPTES RENDUS.
CONTENTS: Vol. XVIII. No. 2.
L’UNITÉ DE LA PHILOSOPHIE. By _P. Janet_.
L’EXPRESSION OBJECTIVE EN MUSIQUE D’APRÈS LE LANGAGE
INSTINCTIF. By _J. Combarieu_.
LA PSYCHOLOGIE DE W. JAMES. (Concluded.) By _L. Marillier_.
REVUE DES PÉRIODIQUES ÉTRANGERS. (Paris: Félix Alcan.)
CONTENTS: Vol. XVIII. No. 3.
RECHERCHES SUR LA SUCCESSION DES PHÉNOMÈNES PSYCHOLOGIQUES. By
_B. Bourdon_.
L’AMOUR EST-IL UN ÉTAT PATHOLOGIQUE? By _G. Danville_.
SUR UN EFFET PARTICULIER DE L’ATTENTION APPLIQUÉE AUX IMAGES.
By _André Lalande_.
BEAUTÉ ORGANIQUE ET BEAUTÉ PLASTIQUE. By _A. Naville_.
REVUE DE MÉTAPHYSIQUE ET DE MORALE.
CONTENTS: Vol. I. No. 1.
MÉTAPHYSIQUE ET MORALE. By _Félix Ravaisson_.
LE CONTINU MATHÉMATIQUE. By _H. Poincaré_.
ESSAI SUR QUELQUES PROBLÈMES DE PHILOSOPHIE PREMIÈRE. By _F.
Rauh_. (Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.)
VOPROSUI FILOSOFII I PSICHOLOGII.[87]
CONTENTS: Vol. III. No. 15.
THE AIM OF HUMAN LIFE. By _W. Rosanoff_.
THE PROBLEM OF JUDGMENT. By _F. Charitonoff_.
THE POSITIVISM OF KANT. By _A. Kozloff_.
THE BASIS OF THE MORAL DUTY. By _N. Grote_.
A CRITICISM OF MORAL ALTRUISM. By _W. Preobrajensky_.
THE SENSE OF LOVE. By _W. Solowoff_.
THE FOUNDER OF TRANSCENDENTAL MONISM. By _A. Wedensky_.
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY IN
LONDON. By _W. Chige_.
THE QUESTION OF ZOÖPSYCHOLOGY. By _W. Wagner_.
THE LAW OF PERCEPTION. By _N. Lange_. (Moscow, 1892.)
PHILOSOPHISCHES JAHRBUCH.
CONTENTS: Vol. VI. No. 1.
UEBER DIE ACTUALE BESTIMMTHEIT DES UNENDLICH KLEINEN. By
_Pohle_.
GASSENDI’S SKEPTICISMUS UND SEINE STELLUNG ZUM MATERIALISMUS.
By _Kiefl_.
DER BEGRIFF DES “WAHREN.” By _Franz Schmid_.
DER BEGRIFF DES UNBEWUSSTEN IN PSYCHOLOGISCHER UND
ERKENNTNISSTHEORETISCHER HINSICHT BEI ED. V. HARTMANN. By
_Achelis_.
DER SUBSTANZBEGRIFF BEI CARTESIUS IM ZUSAMMENHANG MIT DER
SCHOLASTISCHEN UND NEUEREN PHILOSOPHIE. (Continued.) By _Carl
Ludewig_, S. J. (Fulda, 1893.)
SPHINX.
CONTENTS: Vol. XV. No. 84.
NIRWANA. By _Menetos_.—DIE WIEDERVERKÖRPERUNGSLEHRE IM DRAMA.
By _Ludwig Deinhard_.—DIE GNADE. By _Maria Janitschek_.—DAS
FERNSEHEN ALS FUNKTION DES TRANSSCENDENTALEN SUBJEKTS.
By _Carl du Prel_, Ph. D. (Concluded.)—AN CARL DU PREL.
By _Martin Greif_.—SEHEN UND WAHRTRÄUMEN. By _Hermann
Haug_.—UEBER DIE SPIRITISTISCHEN PHÄNOMENE VOM PHYSIKALISCHEN
STANDPUNKT. By _Dr. Anton Lampa_.—SCHULD UND SÜHNE. Ein
Beitrag zur Frage der Telepathie. By _M. Const. Hoch_.
(Concluded.)—DIE GÖTTIN DES GENUSSES. Eine Traumphantasie.
By _Karl Friedr. Jordan_.—FEGFEUER. Nach François Coppée.
By _Rudolf Geering_.—GERETTET! By _Raphael von Koeber_, Ph.
D.—MELANCHOLIE. By _Carl Vanselow_.—DIE SECHS SCHWÄNE. Ein
Beitrag zum Nachweis des Esoterismus im Volksbewusstsein.
By _Gottschalk Thorsten_.—GEHEIMNISS. By _Adolf K. W.
Hochenegg_.—EINE GEISTERSTIMME. By _Hugo Gozdawa_.—DER BEGRIFF
DES ABSOLUTEN. By _O. Plümacher_.
CONTENTS: Vol. XVI, No. 85.
LEBE DEINEM HÖCHSTEN IDEAL GETREU!—A-U-M. By
_Menetos_.—PSALMEN. By _Franz Evers_.—MEISTER DER MYSTIK.
By _Wilhelm von Saintgeorge_.—AEGYPTENS GROSSE PYRAMIDE.
Ein Tempel der Einweihung in die Mysterien. By _Eduard
Maitland_.—DIE DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR ETHISCHE KULTUR UND
HERR VON EGIDY. By _Hugo von Gizycki_.—DIE MYSTIK DES ISLAM. By
_Adolf Engelbach_.—EIN ECHTER DIENER GOTTES. By _Dr. Raphael
von Koeber_.—EIN GEGNER DES SPIRITISMUS. By _Carl du Prel_.—DIE
WISSENSCHAFT DER MAGIER. By _Ludwig Deinhard_.—HEBE DICH
WEG VON MIR, SATAN! By _H. v. M._—ANNA HENLE. Ein Erlebnis.
By _Hübbe-Schleiden_.—DER STERN DER SINTFLUT. By _Arthur
Stentzel_.—SELIGE GEGENWART. By _Maria Janitschek_.—SEHNSUCHT.
By _Carl Vanselow_.—DAS ELFLEIN, DAS AUSGING, DEN KÖNIG ZU
SUCHEN. By _Bernhard Fabler_.—DER BLINDE PASSAGIER. By _Ludwig
Ganghofer_.—FRÜHLINGS ERWACHEN. Für Väter und Erzieher. By _O.
Plümacher_.—DREI KNOSPEN. By _Hans von Mosch_. (Brunswick: C.
A. Schwetschke & Son.)
We cannot be accused of having any penchant for Theosophy or Spiritualism
and find little occasion to praise their productions, which are usually
crude and illiterate. But we must confess that Hübbe-Schleiden’s review,
the _Sphinx_, is greatly superior to anything in this field we have
ever seen. There is artistic taste about it; there is, so far as its
position admits of, a certain contact with positive science; there is an
attractive popularity without shallowness. All these means are skilfully
employed by the editor to impress his ideas, erroneous though they may
be, upon his public. If the magazine appeared in English, instead of
German, it would at once become the recognised leader in its field.
FOOTNOTES:
[87] _Questions of Philosophy and Psychology._
VOL. III. JULY, 1893. NO. 4.
THE MONIST.
NATIONALISATION OF EDUCATION AND THE UNIVERSITIES.[88]
A little more than a century ago it was universally believed that, in the
nature of things, the vitality of a republic and its size stand in an
inverse ratio. The inadaptability of a republican system of government to
a state of vast territorial expanse and with a very numerous population
was considered an almost axiomatic, i. e. self-evident, truth. When the
thirteen English colonies in North America had taken the bold resolution
to transform themselves into the United States of America, many an ardent
patriot often asked himself, not free from anxious foreboding, whether
the Union was within the limits laid down by irreversible political laws,
as the utmost extent of republics fit to endure. If it had not been
for the size of the country, the doubts as to whether the republican
experiment was likely to prove a success, would never have assumed a
character, which gave sufficient color to the charge of monarchical
tendencies, to make them appear well-founded in the eyes of so many
people. When afterwards a new empire was to be added to the Union by the
Louisiana purchase, the doubt, as to whether the republican system of
government would be equal to the strain put upon it by such an immense
enlargement of the area of the United States, played a not unimportant
part among the objections of the opposition. That experience has
definitively disposed of these ideas, by proving the apprehensions to
be unfounded, is no reason to think meanly of the political discernment
of those who entertained them. It will not be universally admitted, that
experience has thus far proved them to be wholly unfounded also as to
consolidated republics. And how can it be wondered at, that at that time
the essential difference was not fully realised and understood, which
exists between a federal and a consolidated republic with regard to the
peculiar dangers and evils apt to arise from this specific cause. Though
republican federations had been known to the world for two thousand
years, no instruction was to be derived from their history on this head.
As to the extent of territory, the consolidated Roman republic, which
had consumed its vitality with its growth, could alone be compared with
the United States; and as to many of the essential features of their
political structure, neither modern nor ancient history furnished an
analogy. In the soil of the New World, the germs of European institutions
had—adapting themselves to the new conditions—developed into a new type
of commonwealth.