This is the form of words by which that great man, Locke, involved
himself in the doctrine of socialism. The school of philosophy has
freed itself of the errors of Locke, and of much of the infidelity of
Hume which those errors precipitated upon the world. The error now
under notice, in the unsettled political state of France, was seized
upon by the Communists: infidelity and anarchy followed. From them, it
was consecrated in an abridged form of words in the greatest state
paper that was ever written,--the “Declaration of Independence,”--and
incorporated into the popular language of the American people, and,
indeed, into that of every people where the English language is
spoken. Great and good men, who abhor the folly of socialism, do not
scruple to assert that the true theory of all governments is, that
they are an abridgment of original and natural rights; forgetful of
the fact that it is from the fountain of socialism that they draw
their original supply of ideas. Those of the republican type maintain
that the government should be founded upon the _concessions_ of the
majority, and that any thing else is tyranny. I propose to deal with
this idea in a future lecture. I now only consider the dogma in the
literal sense--the form in which it exists in popular thought.
Literally, what is the state of man by nature? and, Is he free and
equal in that state? We can conceive of man as existing only in one or
the other of two states; one of which is his natural state, and the
other merely hypothetical: that is, the _simple_, or individual state,
and the _complex_, or social state. To conceive of men in their simple
state, or as _not in a state of society_, is to conceive of them as
existing as mere individuals: that is, _without connection or relation
one with the other_. Is this the _natural_ state of man--the state
intended for him by nature? Certainly not. It is not known to history,
any more than to us, that any set of men ever existed in this way.
This, then, is a merely hypothetical state. In reality, there never
was such a state of things, and never will be. Indeed, on the
hypothesis that such was the original state of men by nature, or as
intended by the Lord, it would follow as a mere truism that each one
of those separate individuals was _free_ from control by any one or
all of the others: that is, they were all _free_ and equal. That this
truism expresses the truth of the case, no doubt exists in the thought
of a great many; but they overlook the hypothesis which makes it a
hypothetical truism, merely because it never had any existence in
fact, and never can have.
To conceive of men in the _social state_ is to conceive of them in
their relations to each other. Hence it is a _complex_ state. Several
ideas enter into this state--not only individuality, as in the former
case, but also contiguity of time and place, variety, and often
contrariety of relations, together with all the ideas which, as
sequences, grow out of these. Now, a leading idea involved in this
state, and inseparable from it, is the idea of _government_: that is,
the _political_ is inseparable from the social state. These various
and conflicting relations must be defined by certain rules, carrying
the full idea of _control_. Without this, these relations could not
operate in harmonious agreement for a single day. Now, as the
_natural_ state of man is the state for which he was made,--the state
to which alone his entire nature is adapted,--there can be no dispute,
the _social_ state is the _natural_ state of man. “And the Lord God
said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an
helpmeet for him.” He was made, then, for society, and society was
immediately furnished him. But the _law_ of relation, we find, was
coincident with the relation itself: “Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” Gen. ii. 24.
And so also, every one born into the world was born in a state of
society--the social state--and has always existed in this state: that
is, _under government_. But we have before proved that a state of
slavery is fundamental in the _complex_ idea of government. There is,
there can be, _no government without it_. Therefore, the natural state
of man, or the state to which he is adapted by both his mental and
physical constitution, is a state of slavery in combination with
liberty, _which is the complex idea of government_.
4. “The relation which men sustain to each other is the relation of
_equality_: not _equality of condition_, but _equality of right_.”
This is the form in which Dr. Wayland prefers to express the doctrine
of equality.[2] He explains himself thus: “Each separate individual is
created with precisely the same right to use the advantages with which
God has endowed him as any other individual.” From this position, as
thus explained, he deduces an argument the force of which, without
expressing it in so many words, is constructively made to pervade the
whole performance. For his whole argument may be embodied thus: the
government which places an individual in any other condition than that
of political equality is an odious tyranny: the government which
establishes domestic slavery does this, and is therefore an odious
tyranny.
[2] Moral Science. Part II., Division I--Reciprocity.
Now, the proposition, as he explains it, may be admitted as a truism;
but then the doctrine of essential equality of right will not follow
from such an admission: that is, social and political equality. For
what if it be true that “each separate individual has precisely the
same right to use the advantages with which God has endowed him?” It
only follows that each one has a common right in this respect merely,
but not that there is an essential equality of right in any available
sense in which we are accustomed to understand the phrase. For if so,
it will follow that brutes have an essential equality of rights with
men, and that both men and brutes have an essential equality of rights
with angels. This is not pushing the argument too far in either
direction. For brutes, in a sense well defined by Dr. Wayland himself,
have rights. No one but a _moral_ brute would deny the right of his
fellow-creature--the brute--to appropriate an accessible bucket of
refreshing water to slake his burning thirst. Nothing is more certain
than that brutes, men, and angels have a common right to appropriate
the advantages with which God has endowed them. Brutes could not have
lower, and angels could not have higher, rights in this respect. But
surely it cannot be said that this common right confers on brutes,
men, and angels, essential equality of rights in any practical sense
whatever; for then it will follow that brutes, men, and angels have an
equal right to social and political equality--a bold and reckless
absurdity.
We admit that one man has a common right with each and all other men
in the respect stated; but not that they have common rights in other
respects. The common right to use our “_advantages to promote our
happiness_” will not constitute us equals in any proper sense, unless
our _advantages_ be equal. Now, Dr. Wayland himself allows, in the
very terms of his proposition, that men are _not equal in
condition_--that is, _not equal in advantages_. And nothing is more
obvious than that men are not equal in that intellectual and moral
condition which would enable them to use certain social and political
advantages for the benefit of themselves and others: consequently,
upon his own admission, they would have no right to them. Unless,
then, it can be shown that God has endowed all human beings with
intellectual and moral capacities sufficiently developed to enable
them to be used for the common welfare, they have no right to what we
call political freedom. But it is unquestionable that men are not
universally nor even generally so endowed. It is not the case with
minors. Political freedom is withheld from them by the laws of all
States, for the obvious reason that it is not among the privileges
which God, as yet, endowed them with the ability to use for the common
welfare. Still, no one, so far as we are aware, ever dreamed that
minors were herein abridged of their natural rights, and that
government and parents were “_odious tyrants_” because they subjected
them to one of the known forms of domestic slavery! We are not
surprised, therefore, that Dr. Wayland found himself compelled to
admit that minors were exceptions to his rule; which, however, he had
argued as universal--universals admit of no exceptions.
Again, it is not true of barbarians, through any of the stages of
barbarism. At no period are they in that state of intellectual and
moral development in which they could use for the common welfare the
blessings of civil freedom, as understood and enjoyed by a highly
civilized people. If they were, they would not be barbarians, but a
civilized people, to whom the right of civilization--political
freedom--would inure.
Now I assume here, what I shall prove in a future lecture, that the
African came into this country in a state of extreme barbarism; and
that, in the judgment of Southern people--whom prejudice itself can
hardly deny are honest and the only competent judges in this
matter--they are still, as a race, in a state of semi-barbarism, to
say the least. If we are right in this position, they also are an
example of persons who are clearly not entitled to the rights which
inure only to a state of civilization. With what propriety, therefore,
could any decent man, whose object is not to insult, affirm that we
are “odious tyrants,” for withholding from the African the rights
which are appropriate only to a state of civilization: unless he were
prepared first to show that we are wrong in our position as to the
question of fact, that they are still in a state of semi-barbarism,
and, therefore, not entitled to civil freedom?
How shall we characterize the course of Dr. Wayland! After drawing an
ingenious argument through many pages of his performance: appealing to
the facts and principles of Holy Scripture: not failing, in the
progress and application of his false position, to stigmatize the
system of African slavery as an odious tyranny, and this for the
obvious purpose of degrading the Southern States of this Union in the
eyes of the whole civilized world: then, when he is confronted, as he
necessarily was, in the progress of his own argument, by the only
material fact in the whole discussion, he adroitly evades all
consideration of it whatever! On page 216, fourth edition, he states
the position of the South, that the “slaves are not competent to
self-government,” and shortly replies, “This is a question of fact
which it is not the province of Moral Philosophy to decide.” Why then
did he decide it by an application of his false position to the South?
Echo answers, Why?
Had he confined the application of his principles to the rights which
belong to a civilized people, we should have no cause to complain; or
had he adduced facts to invalidate the position of the South in
regard to its African population, we should be bound to regard him as
maintaining an honorable discussion; or, yielding this point, had he
attempted to define that form of government most appropriate to a mass
of semi-barbarians, dwelling in the midst of a highly civilized
people, with whom they could not amalgamate; or, declining this, had
he frankly confessed his incompetency (as indeed will really appear
upon a discussion of his basis principle) to do justice to the subject
of Moral Philosophy at this point at least--in either case we should
be bound to respect his effort. But departing, as he evidently does,
from all these obvious lines of duty in the pathway of his desolating
errors, and inflicting so deep a wound upon the feelings of the whole
Southern community, it must be allowed that our charity is heavily
taxed in accounting for his course. He can have no cause to complain
that we adopt the opinion that he has permitted an early prejudice to
grow into a feeling of fanaticism, so fixed as to warp his judgment on
points of very simple application in Moral Science.
Dr. Wayland’s treatise is a text-book in many of our literary
institutions, and he himself is eminently distinguished both in the
religious and literary world. Such a text-book, thus endorsed by both
piety and learning, put into the hands of our young men, could rarely
fail of its object--especially if the professor concur in enforcing
its doctrines. This is frequently the case in Northern institutions,
and has often occurred in Southern; and where it has not, the
professor, as a general thing, is either silent, or he concedes the
_doctrines_ of the text, and rests the defence of the South upon the
false position, that “she cannot help herself!” The assumption that
God has placed men in circumstances in which they cannot avoid a
violation of his own immutable principles of right, may be so entirely
overlooked, as to leave the doctrines and arguments of the text to
work an increasing conviction that there is moral wrong in African
slavery. If this state of things continue, we must not be surprised if
abolition fanaticism should have a still more rapid growth in our
land.