Introduction to the Study of the History of Political Parties in the
United States.
A knowledge of the nature of our federal government, and its relations
to the State Governments, of which it is composed, is a prerequisite to
an understanding of the history of our political parties.
The government of the United States is a federal republic, first formed
by the voluntary union of thirteen commonwealths. At present it is
composed of forty-four united States. It is a government of enumerated
powers, and in this respect differs radically from the governments of
the individual States. As all agree, the Federal Government possesses
only those powers specifically granted to it by the constitution. The
States possess all powers except those granted to the National
Government, and those not prohibited to them by the terms of the
constitution. When the government of the United States desires to
exercise a power, it must be proven that it was the intention of the
framers of the constitution, and so expressed in that instrument, that
it should possess such a power. The States in the exercise of their
powers need only show that they have not resigned that power. If there
be any dispute as to the constitutionality of an act of either Congress
or a State legislature, the point is decided in the final instance by
the Supreme Court of the United States.
In the political history of our country since the adoption of the
constitution, there have been ever present two great constitutional
questions, in the conflicting answers to which we must seek the origin
and creeds of our great political parties. If we can gain a proper
conception of the character of these two questions, we shall have taken
a long step towards the understanding of the reasons for the conduct of
the various opposing parties, and the basis of the disputes arising
between them. These have been the two questions. First, What is the
extent of the powers granted by the constitution to the National
Government? Second, What is the real nature of our Union; and, arising
under this problem, What is the extent to which the States are justified
in opposing what they believe to be unconstitutional acts on the part of
the National Government; and, Can a State or States, as a last resort,
withdraw from the Union? The remainder of this chapter will be mainly
devoted to a more particular examination of these questions.
What are the legitimate powers of the United States Government?
The United States government was the result of the union of thirteen
independent colonies--a union voluntary on the part of the colonies, yet
forced upon them by the evident need of some central power strong enough
to enforce obedience at home and demand respect abroad. The
determination of what and how many the national powers should be, was
the work of the Constitutional Convention. Of the difficulties of this
task we have already spoken.
In forming a scheme for a central government, there was the double
necessity of creating a government strong enough to perform the duties
for which it was established, and yet not so strong as to endanger the
free self-government of the States. The delicate point to be adjusted
was to give to the Federal Government only such powers as were necessary
for the establishment of an effective National Government, and, as far
as possible, to retain in the States their full governmental powers; in
other words, to harmonize federal strength with State sovereignty.
The fear exhibited by the States in the debates preceding the adoption
and ratification of the constitution of 1787, that the National
Government might become too strong at the expense of their own powers of
government, was not set at rest by the compromises obtained in the
convention, nor by the eleven amendments adopted soon after the
inauguration of the new government. The reason for the continuance of
this fear is that the constitution is so worded that the powers of the
general government are not precisely fixed.
The statement sometimes loosely made that a description of our
government is contained in the constitution, is apt to be misleading.
The constitution has served rather as a foundation upon which to build
the government, than as an entire framework. As a distinguished writer
has termed it, "The constitution was meant only as a scheme in outline,
to be filled up afterwards, and from time to time, by legislation."
A description of our present form of government is far from being
contained in the instrument adopted in 1788. For example, the
constitution makes no mention of how business shall be transacted by the
legislature. Committee Government in Congress owes its existence to no
provision of the constitution. The only mention made in the constitution
of the Speaker of the House, to-day the most powerful officer in the
legislature, is where it is provided that "The House of Representatives
shall choose their speaker and other officers." All executive
departments--the State, War, Navy, Treasury, Post Office, Interior,
Justice, Agriculture, and Labor--have been created from time to time by
act of Congress. Regarding the structure and number of federal courts,
the constitution merely provides that "The judicial power of the United
States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts
as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Our elaborate
system of district, circuit, and territorial courts, rests solely upon
congressional enactments. So, too, the constitution gives to Congress
the control of territories, but does not provide how that control shall
be exercised.
The framers of our constitution were wise in not attempting to specify
more particularly than they did, the manner in which the several powers
granted to the Federal Government should be exercised. They realized
that they were forming a scheme that was to endure for many years, and
that if it was to be capable of meeting the needs of a changing and
rapidly growing country, it would have to be elastic, and contain within
itself the power of adapting itself to new needs and conditions. To
secure the beneficial execution of the powers granted, Congress was
given the power of selecting appropriate means. To have refused the
grant of this power, would have been to attempt to provide by
unchangeable rule for emergencies that could by no possibilities be
foreseen. Or, as Chief Justice Marshall has put it, "It would have been
to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of
experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation
to circumstances."
After enumerating the various particular powers given to the Federal
Legislature, the constitution further says (Art. I, Sec. 8) "and [shall
have power] to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or
in any department or officer thereof." This is the clause under whose
authorization all those powers have been assumed, and functions
exercised, that have made the United States government of to-day so
different from that of 1789.
The general rule is, as has been said, that the United States government
possesses only those powers granted to it by the constitution. But here,
in this clause just quoted, is a general grant of all powers necessary
or proper for carrying into effect any of the powers particularly
granted. Who or what is to decide just what powers are necessary and
proper for the accomplishment of this object? Naturally people have not
been able to agree upon the question of just what powers are
constitutional or expedient as "implied" under this title of "necessary
and proper" and this question has been largely instrumental in dividing
the people in opposing political parties. There has always been a party,
the members of which, favoring great powers for the States rather than
for the Federal Government, have been "strict constructionists," and
have advocated a close and narrow interpretation of this clause of
"implied powers." From their desire to retain in the State governments
as many powers as possible, they have been known as the "States' Rights
Party." Opposing them has been the party of "loose constructionists,"
the members of which have held to a free, liberal interpretation of the
constitution, and have endeavored to increase the power of the Federal
Government. There have never been political parties styling themselves
"Strict Constructionists" and "Loose Constructionists," for these are
terms that have been used not as titles, but as definitions of different
principles of constitutional interpretation. But by whatever name they
may have been known, there have been, during the greater part of our
history, these two political parties, the one holding to the principle
of strict construction and States' Rights, and the other to that of
loose construction and federal power.
The second fundamental question spoken of in the beginning of this
chapter as underlying national politics, is concerning the nature of our
union and the rights of state nullification and secession.
A final answer to these questions cannot of course be here attempted,
but that which can be done, is to state in a few words just what their
meaning is, and the points upon which they have turned. When we come to
the consideration of the course of politics in the United States we
shall see the answers that history has given to them.
The government of the United States is the judge of its own powers, for
it is in its own supreme judicial tribunal that the constitutionality of
both State and Federal laws is finally determined. More than once has a
practical answer been demanded to the question What is to be done by a
State or States when, in their estimation, the National Government has
transcended its powers and legislated in an unconstitutional manner?
Obedience, nullification, or, in the last resort, secession from the
Union, have been the various alternatives that have offered themselves
to the States. Different views of the nature of our Union have sustained
the propriety of the selection of different ones of these alternatives.
According to the nullification theory, the constitution is held to be of
the nature of a compact between the States as one party and the Federal
Government as the other; and that, as in all contracts, if the
agreements contained therein are broken by the one party, the other
party has the right to refuse its assent thereto. Therefore, if the
United States government attempts the exercise of powers not granted in
the compact, the States have the right to interpose the "rightful
remedy" of "nullification." That is to say, that each State has the
right to determine for itself when an unwarranted power has been assumed
by the general government, and in such a case to declare the obnoxious
law null and of no force within her own boundaries.
In considering the question of nullification, it is necessary to
distinguish between the theory or rather method of nullification
propounded by Madison and Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky
Resolutions, from that of Calhoun brought forward at the time of South
Carolina's resistance to, and attempted nullification of, the Tariff
laws of 1828, and 1832. In the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions the
Alien and Sedition Acts were solemnly declared to be unconstitutional,
that the Union was a compact, and the States had the right to interpose
the remedy of nullification; but open resistance was not proposed. By
the Jeffersonian theory, it was proposed to obtain the opinion of
three-fourths of the States that the acts were unconstitutional, and
thus to "nullify" them after the manner of a constitutional amendment.
Until such nullification, the laws were to be obeyed.
The Calhoun doctrine was something entirely different from this.
According to his doctrine, any single State might order at once a
suspension of the law within her borders, and not until three-fourths of
the States in national convention had overruled the nullification could
the State be forced to obey the obnoxious law. To use Calhoun's own
words, his theory was, that "it belongs to the State, as a member of the
Union, in her sovereign capacity in convention, to determine definitely,
as far as her citizens are concerned, the extent of the obligation which
she has _contracted_; and if, in her opinion, the act exercising the
power in dispute be unconstitutional, to declare it null and void, which
declaration would be obligatory on her citizens." The sum and substance
of this was, as Von Holst has pointed out,[1] to give to one-fourth of
the States the power if they saw fit to deprive the Federal Government
of every power entrusted to it, that is, to alter the constitution at
will.
[Footnote 1: _Constitutional History of the United States_, Vol. I, p.
474, note.]
The right of secession follows as a logical outcome of the theory of
nullification rigidly carried out. Federal laws are general in their
nature, and if binding anywhere, must be binding everywhere. If then, a
minority of States insist on their right of nullification, the federal
government will be obliged either to admit that every act of Congress is
without any force in a State until it has obtained the tacit approval of
the people of that State, or else it will be driven to the necessity of
obtaining the enforcement of the law by arms. Such employment of force
would of course be but the prelude to secession. Indeed, South Carolina,
in her Ordinance of Nullification, declared that she would secede, if
the United States did not repeal the obnoxious laws, or if she should
attempt to enforce the collections of the tariff duties provided for by
the acts in dispute. According to the Unionist view, it is held that in
no case has the individual State the right to resist the operation of a
federal law, much less does it possess the actual power to pass a law
affecting its relation to, or continuance in, the Union. This view is
supported by an interpretation of the constitution that denies to that
instrument the character of a compact between the States and the
National Government. The constitutional theory of this school is that
the National Government was formed _by the people_ as a whole, and not
by the States. That the States accepted this government, but were in no
sense parties to an agreement between them and the Nation. According to
this view, the Union began with the first acts of resistance taken in
common by the colonies, and is thus, in a sense, older than the state
governments, which were not formed until after the Declaration of
Independence. Also, that when the States gave in 1788 their consent to
the constitution, their consent was irrevocable. Two quotations from
decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States will make
clear the arguments and theory of the Unionists.
Said Chief Justice Marshall:[1] "The convention which promulgated the
constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures, but the
instrument when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without
obligations or pretentious to it. It was reported to the then existing
Congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be
submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each State by the
people thereof, under recommendation of its legislature for their assent
and ratification.' This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the
conventions, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument
was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only way in which
they can act safely, effectually, and wisely on such a subject, by
assenting in convention. It is true they assembled in their several
States, an where could they have assembled? From these conventions the
constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds
directly from the people. The assent of the States in their sovereign
capacity is implied in calling the convention, and thus submitting that
instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to
accept or reject it, and their decision was final. It required not the
affirmance of, and could not be negatived by, the state governments. The
constitution when adopted was of complete obligation, and bound the
state sovereignties. The government of the Union then, is emphatically
and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it
emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be
exercised directly on them, and for their benefit."
[Footnote 1: _McCulloch_ v. _Md._, 4 Dall., 316.]
Said Chief Justice Chase:[1] "The union of the States never was a purely
artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the colonies, and grew
out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, and
geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the
necessities of war, and received definite form and character and
sanction from the articles of Confederation. By these the union was
solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when the articles were found to
be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the constitution was
ordained 'to form a more perfect union.' It is difficult to convey the
idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be
more indissoluble if a perpetual union made more perfect, is not? But
the perpetuity and indissolubility of the union, by no means implies the
loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of
self-government by the States.... Without the States in Union, there
could be no such political body as the United States. Not only,
therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to
the States, through their union under the constitution, but it may be
not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the
maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care
of the constitution, as the preservation of the Union and the
maintenance of the National Government. The constitution in all its
provisions looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible
States."
[Footnote 1: _Texas_ v. _White_, 7 Wall., 750.]
A civil war of four years' duration has decided the Unionist theory of
our government to be the one under which the Nation is to be governed.
Whether or not, in point of fact, the Nation was older than the States,
and the constitution not a compact, but an indissoluble Union, will
always remain a question to be discussed. The dispute turns upon a point
that does not admit of final determination. We can only theorize. To
maintain the view that the Union is older than the States it is
necessary to show that the Continental Congress was of such a character,
and its powers of such a nature, that a true national government may be
said to have existed before July 4, 1776, and therefore, that the
Declaration of Independence and the consequent transformation of the
colonies into States were not the result of the individual action of
separate colonies, but of the whole people united in a nation. And,
following from this, that the States were never out of the union, but
that the individual colonies became States, only as belonging to the
United States. Consequently that the theory of a 'compact' between the
States and the United States is untenable, for at the time the United
States was born, the States did not exist.[1]
[Footnote 1: As Lincoln expressed it in his message of July 4, 1861:
"The States have their _status_ in the Union, and they have no other
legal status.... The Union is older than any of the States, and in fact,
it created them as States."]
To maintain the "Compact Theory" it is necessary to show that the
"Continental Congress" had no properly delegated national powers, and
to it the character of a national government could not fitly be applied,
and that the colonies when they separated from England remained
independent of each other, because as colonies they had been
independent. Therefore, that the initial clause of the Preamble to the
Constitution "We the people of the United States" referred not to all
the people of the United States in their collective capacity, but to the
people of the several States.
In fine, admitting, as all do, the Continental Congress to have been a
revolutionary body, exercising undelegated powers, the question is, Was
it, or was it not, a _de jure_, as well as _de facto_ national
government, and this is a question that cannot be answered absolutely.
These opposing views of the character of our constitution have been
stated not with the idea of proving either of them to be the correct
one, but solely to indicate the lines along which political parties have
fought their battles. Thus, it is hoped, the student will be prepared
for an intelligent consideration of the various political parties that
have existed in the course of his country's history.
To complete the statement of the underlying causes and fundamental
principles that have directed the course of our national politics, it is
necessary to give at least some short account of the natural causes that
have operated irresistibly to divide the North and the South in their
political thoughts and actions.
Why is it that slavery flourished in the South, but languished and was
gradually abolished in the North? Why is it that the stronghold of the
States' Rights doctrine of nullification and of secession was in the
South, and the citadel of the Unionists in the North? Why is it that
to-day the debate between high and low customs duties, is, to a very
considerable extent, a discussion between the New England and Middle
States and the Southern States?
To all these questions a very satisfactory answer can be found in the
different physical characteristics of the North and South. The nature
of the soil and climate, as well as the character of the settlers,
predetermined for the Southern colonies an agricultural character, and
for the colonies of the North a commercial and industrial character;
and, already by the end of the eighteenth century we find in them a
marked difference of political and social life.
From the very start, the South, favored by a mild climate, rich soil,
and broad, low-lying valleys, developed an agricultural life. Slavery
was introduced at an early date, and flourished, the warm climate being
congenial to the negro, and the rude manual labor of the field suited to
his meagre capabilities. The result of these influences was to develop
in the South a system of large ill-worked manors or estates. The
predominance of slave labor, discouraged the immigration of free labor,
and the South remained comparatively thinly settled. The moral effect of
slavery upon the white population was bad. Habits of thriftlessness and
laziness were engendered among the free population, and their social
relations corrupted.
In the North, an indented coast with many good harbors, a rugged soil,
and a wintry climate, encouraged the development of a commercial and
manufacturing life. Slave labor here proved itself scarcely profitable,
neither the climate nor the nature of the work required, being suited to
the frames and abilities of the African. As compared with the South, the
North soon became thickly settled, and largely as a result of this,
adopted the small area of the town or township as its most important
unit of local government, instead of the larger area, the county, used
in the South. This essential difference in the system of local
government in the North, from that of the South, has remained unchanged
to this day, and has exercised great influence upon the political habits
of the peoples of these two sections.
At the time of the adoption of the constitution, these differences
between the northern and southern colonies were not so great as they
were soon to become. As contrasted with the North, the agricultural
character of the South was already marked, but the designation of these
two sections as "free" and "slave" states had not yet come into use. It
was the remarkable development of the cultivation of cotton consequent
upon the invention of Whitney's cotton gin in 1793, that gave the
tremendous impetus to the increase of slavery in the South. While prior
to the introduction of this machine, scarcely a single pound of cotton
could be separated from the seed by a man in a day, Whitney's gin made
it possible to prepare for market three hundred and fifty pounds per
day. The nature of the cotton plant rendered it peculiarly fitted to the
climate and soil of the South, and the ease with which it could be
cultivated and prepared for market, made the application of slave labor
extremely profitable. In 1789 many of the southern states exhibited
evidences of a desire and intention to ultimately abolish slavery, but
from this time we hear nothing more of this. After 1800 the number of
slaves increased rapidly. The census of 1790 showed in the southern
colonies 650,000, while that of 1820 showed the number to be over
1,580,000. From 1800 to 1865 the political life of the South is largely
explainable by the interest of its people in, and devotion to, the
institution of slavery.
The promptness with which, irrespective of party affiliations, the
people of the North assumed the anti-slavery attitude and those of the
South placed themselves under the pro-slavery banner, at the time of the
Missouri contest in 1820, shows the extent to which these two sections
of the United States were already divided upon this great question. The
South, retarded in its growth by the employment of slave labor, as
compared with the North already exhibited an example of arrested
development, and her politicians saw that if the balance of power
between the slave-holding and the non-slave-holding States was to be
maintained, a wider field for the extension of their favorite
institution would have to be provided. It is in the light of this motive
that the desire of the South for the annexation of Cuba and of Texas,
even at the expense of a war with Mexico, is to be interpreted. The
compromise of 1820 satisfied the demands of the slavocracy for a time,
but only for a time. In 1850 the South again demanded, and obtained
concessions. It required a civil war to demonstrate to us the futility
of endeavoring to avert by compromise the conflict that was
irrepressible between the North and South so long as slavery existed in
the one, and was reprobated in the other.
The different attitudes assumed at the present day by the North and
South in regard to the Tariff question, is explainable by the difference
in the industrial life of these two sections. The North is essentially a
manufacturing centre, and, as such, demands high import duties as a
protection to her manufacturers and merchants. The South is, as a whole,
agricultural, and favors low duties with the idea of thus extending
foreign trade, and affording a larger market for the sale of her raw
products. A striking proof of the influence of the industrial life of a
section in determining its attitude towards the tariff, is seen in the
change of front of Massachusetts after 1824 from free-trade to
protection, this change being wholly due to the predominating influence
acquired by her manufactures over her commerce and agriculture.
FINIS.
NOTES.
For the assistance of those who may desire a fuller acquaintance with
the administrative methods of our Federal and State Governments than is
to be obtained from this book, these bibliographical notes are appended.
Not only the authorities actually consulted in the preparation of this
monograph are given, but mention is also made of the most reliable and
accessible sources of information upon the more important topics germane
to the study of Government and Administration. In arrangement, the notes
follow the order of topics used in the text.
General Works upon United States Government.
Worthy of first mention is the admirable work of James Bryce, _The
American Commonwealth_, 2 vols., 1888. To the student of American
institutions and administration these two volumes are indispensable. In
them is contained the best and latest scientific exposition of our
political institutions as they exist to-day. The only criticism that can
be made regarding the work is that the executive departments have not
received sufficient attention as regards the details of their
administration, nor the practical and scientific value of the work
performed by their numerous bureaus. Interesting from an historical
point of view is De Tocqueville's _Democracy in America_, now fifty
years old. Lalor's _Encyclopaedia of Political Science, Political
Economy and American History_ is by far the best work for reference. The
principal articles in the field of political science are contributed by
Dr. J.C. Bluntschli, those upon United States History by the late Prof.
Alexander Johnston, and those upon Federal Administration by A.R.
Spofford, Librarian of Congress.
Bannatyne's _Hand-book of Republican Institutions in the United States_
is an authoritative work based upon federal and state laws, and other
authoritative sources of information. It is entirely descriptive and
very complete. Other general works are Mulford's _The Nation: the
Foundation of Civil Order and Political Life in the United States_;
Laboulaye's _Histoire Politique des Etats-Unis,_ 3 vols.; and Lamphere's
_The United States Government: Its Organization and Practical Workings_,
this last being chiefly valuable for its statistical and tabulated
information.
Among foreign works that consider the theory and practice of the United
States Government, are Bagehot's _English Constitution_; Sir Henry
Maine's chapter on the _Constitution of the United States_ in his
_Popular Government_; E.A. Freeman's article _Presidential Government_
contained in his _Historical Essays_ (1871); Lord Brougham's chapter on
the _Government of the United States_ in his _Political Philosophy_,
Vol. 3; and E. Boutmy's _Etudes de droit Constitutionel._ For current
political information McPherson's _Hand-book of Politics_, issued every
two years since 1870, is valuable. Besides statistical information
regarding government revenues and expenditures, public debts, votes,
population, names of congressmen, &c.; these hand-books contain
Presidential and Gubernatorial messages, transcripts from the
_Congressional Record_ relating to leading matters discussed in
Congress; and decisions of the Supreme Court that are of general
importance. _The Statesman's Year-Book_, published annually by Macmillan
& Co., is valuable for reference in matters concerning both foreign and
American governments. Bibliographical references are also given to each
existing government.
John Fiske's recent volume on _Civil Government in the United States_,
stands in merit far above other manuals bearing this name, most of which
are simply running commentaries on the constitution. An excellent
feature of Mr. Fiske's book is the addition of bibliographical notes at
the ends of the chapters.
The following are manuals that may be recommended as of comparative
merit: Macy, _Our Government: How it Grew, What it Does, and How it Does
it_; Cocker's _Civil Government_; Thorpe's _Government of the People of
the United States_; Martin's _Civil Government_, and Ford's _American
Citizens' Manual_.
The most complete collection of bibliographical references to the
Constitution of the United States is that prepared by W.E. Foster, and
published as _Economic Tract_ No. xxix, by the "Society for Political
Education," New York.
Government.
Dr. J.C. Bluntschli's _Lehre vom Modernen Stat_, in three volumes, gives
the finest treatment of the various forms and general principles of
governments. A portion of Dr. Bluntschli's work has been translated into
English and published under the title _The Theory of the State_. There
is also a French translation of this work. Other authorities under this
head are: Bluntschli's _Staatswörterbuch_; Woolsey's _Political Science,
or the State Theoretically and Practically Considered_; and
Montesquieu's _De l'Esprit des Lois_. Interesting from an historical
point of view, are the theories contained in the works of political
philosophers in the past. See Plato's _Republic_; Aristotle's
_Politics_, Cicero's _De Republica_; Thomas Aquinas' _Of the Government
of Principles;_ Dante's _De Monarchia_; Machiavelli's _Prince_; Jean
Bodin's _Of the Commonwealth_; Hobbes' _Leviathan_; Filmer's
_Patriarcha_; Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_; Locke's _Civil
Government_; J.J. Rousseau's _Social Contract_; Bentham's _Fragment on
Government_; J.S. Mills' _Representative Government_.
Pollock's _History of the Science of Politics_, published in the
"Humboldt Library," contains an admirable summary of the views of these
political philosophers.
The works of several of these authors (Hobbes, Hooker, Locke, Filmer,
Machiavelli) are contained in "Morley's Universal Library," published by
Routledge at one shilling per volume.
For theories regarding the origin and development of government, see
Maine's _Ancient Law, Early History of Institutions_, and _Early Law and
Custom_; Spencer's _Principles of Sociology_, Vol. I; Morgan's _Ancient
Society_; McLennan's _Studies in Ancient History_, and _The Patriarchal
Theory_; and Bagehot's _Physics and Politics_, published in the Humbolt
Library. The contract theory of government is presented in various forms
in the works of Hobbes, Hooker, Locke and Rousseau.
Functions of Government.
The proper limits of state action are discussed in Mill's _Essay on
Liberty_; Huxley's _Administrative Nihilism_ (Humboldt Lib.); Spencer's
_Social Statics, Man versus the State, The Coming Slavery_, and _The
Sins of Legislators_ (Humboldt Lib.); Stephen's _Liberty, Equality,
Fraternity_; Humboldt's _Sphere and Duties of Government_; and H.C.
Adams' _State in Relation to Industrial Action_, published by the
American Economic Association. Wilson's _The State_ contains a valuable
chapter upon the functions of government. For a description of existing
forms of government, Prof. Woodrow Wilson's _The State_ is very
valuable. See also _Statesmen's Year Books_.
Colonial Governments.
Volumes III, IV, and V of Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of
America_, 8 vols., contain excellent monographs upon the founding,
history and nature of government of the various colonies. Doyle's two
volumes, entitled _The English Colonies in America_, present an
exhaustive study of the American colonies from an European point of
view. A handy digest of this work is contained in his small _History of
the United States_, published as one of the volumes in "Freeman's
Historical Course for Schools." Lodge's _Short History of the English
Colonies in America_ is chiefly devoted to colonial social life. In the
preparation of the chapter upon Colonial Governments, we have obtained
the most assistance from the first volume of Story's _Commentaries upon
the Constitution_. Pages 15 to 50 of Hannis Taylor's _Origin and Growth
of the English Constitution_ are important. Fiske's _Beginnings of New
England_ is an extremely interesting description of the early history of
a single section. Steps Toward Union and Independence.
See especially Story's _Commentaries_; Frothingham's _Rise of the
Republic of the United States_; Scott's _Development of Constitutional
Liberty in the English Colonies in America_; Fiske's _Critical Period of
American History_; and A.B. Hart's _Formation of the Union_, 1763-1829,
to appear in the series, "Epochs of American History." For the Albany
plan of union see Franklin's _Life and Letters_, Vol. 4. For an account
of the causes leading to revolution written from an essentially English
standpoint, see Lecky's _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_,
Vol. IV.
Articles of Confederation.
Best upon this subject are: Curtis' _History of the Constitution_;
Marshall's _Life of Washington_; Bancroft's _History of the United
States_; and Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_, Vol.
VII, article _The Confederation_ by the Editor. See also _Secret
Journals of Congress_, and authorities cited above.
Constitutional Convention and the Adoption of the Constitution.
See authorities cited above, and J.A. Jameson's _Treatise on
Constitutional Conventions_. The official sources of information are:
the meagre _Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of the Convention_; and
Elliot's _Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of
the Federal Constitution_, * * * * _together with the Journal of the
Federal Convention_, the last volume of which contains Madison's notes
of _Debates in the Federal Convention_, frequently called _The Madison
Papers_.
The Constitution.
The number of valuable works concerned more or less directly with a
study of the Constitution is very great. Only a very few can be
mentioned. A very complete list of references to the Constitution, is
that by W.E. Foster, already referred to. The leading works upon
Constitutional Law are Cooley's _General Principles of Constitutional
Law_, and _Constitutional Limitations_; Von Holst's, Hare's and
Pomeroy's treatises on Constitutional Law. Story's _Commentaries on the
Constitution_ are invaluable. The character and value of _The
Federalist_ have been noticed in the text (p. 25). On Constitutional
Amendments, see Johnston's article on _Amendments_ in Lalor's
_Encyclopaedia_. Concerning Constitutional developments, due to judicial
construction, see Willoughby's _Supreme Court of the United States: its
History and Influence in our Constitutional System_, published in the
Johns Hopkins Studies, Extra Vol. VII; and _The Constitutional History
of the United States as Seen in the Development of American Law_, by
Judge Cooley and others, edited by H.W. Rogers. _The Unwritten
Constitution of the United States,_ is the title of a very recent book
by C.G. Tiedeman.
For constitutional development due to war experiences, see Dunning's
_United States in Civil War and in Reconstruction_. W.E. Foster has in
press a pamphlet of references on _The United States Constitution in
Civil War_.
On Federal Government, see Jellinek's _Die Lehre von den
Staatenverbindungen_; and Hart's _Introduction to the Study of Federal
Government_, Harvard Historical Monographs, No. 2. Besides giving an
outline of the political history of the successive federations in the
world's history, with an account of the literature upon each, Mr. Hart's
monograph contains a very excellent bibliographical note on Federal
Government in general, and the United States Constitution in particular.
The laws of the United States are known as _United States Statutes at
Large_. In 1878 was published a large volume containing all Federal laws
in force in 1874. In 1881 was published a Supplement (known as
_Richardson's Supplement_) containing congressional legislation during
the years 1874--1881.
Congressional Government.
The official reports of the debates of Congress have been published
under the following titles: _Annals of Congress_ (1789--1823),
_Congressional Debates_ (1824-1837), _Congressional Globe_ (1833-1873),
_Congressional Record_ (1873 to the present time). Benton's _Abridgment
of Debates_ in 16 volumes covers the period 1789 to 1850.
McPherson's _Handbook of Politics_, already cited, contains accounts of
the more important debates in Congress. Printed copies of bills and
reports of committees can be obtained upon application. For the best
descriptions of the practical working of Congress, see Bryce's _American
Commonwealth_, and Woodrow Wilson's _Congressional Government_. In both
of these works our committee method of congressional legislation is
compared with the English method of Parliamentary legislation under the
leadership of a responsible ministry. The conclusions obtained from this
comparison by the latter author, are especially unfavorable to the
United States. Other references to works comparing English and American
methods of legislation, are Snow's _Defence of Congressional
Government_, published in the papers of the American Historical
Association, Vol. IV; A.L. Lowell's _Essays on Government_; Bagehot's
_English Constitution_; Bourinot's article, _Canada and the United
States, Scottish Review_, July, 1890, and Annals of the American Academy
of Social Science, No. I; and an article by Hon. Joseph Chamberlain,
_Shall We Americanize Our Institutions?_ Nineteenth Century, December,
1890. _The Congressional Directory_, published annually, contains much
handy information regarding the constitution and officers of Congress,
and of the various federal departments at Washington. For an account of
the work done during the last session (1889-90), see _North American
Review_, November, 1890. Regarding the recent controversy on the power
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to count as present
members in the hall, but not answering to the roll-call, see the _North
American Review_ for October, 1889; the Nos. for March, May, July,
August and October, 1890, also contain interesting articles on the same
subject.
Executive Departments.
Of especial and authoritative value is the report of a select committee
of the Senate to _Enquire into and Examine the Methods of Business and
Work in the Executive Departments_, in 3 vols., known as Cockrell's
Report, or Senate Report 507, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., and also a
supplementary report in one volume, dated March 28, 1889. For other
official sources of information, see the annual reports of the various
departments, and of the individual bureaus. See also special reports
mentioned in the text. On diplomatic relations, see the annual report of
the Secretary of State _On Foreign Relations_, and _Treaties and
Conventions between the United States and Other Powers_ (1776-1887),
published by the same department. The _Consular Reports_, issued from
time to time by the State Department, are of value as furnishing
economic information regarding foreign countries. The reports of the
Secretary of the Treasury are of extreme statistical and financial
value. For handy use the _Statistical Abstract_ is issued annually by
the Treasury Department. The reports published by the Department of
State, of the _International Conferences of 1878_, and of _1881_, and
that of Edward Atkinson on _The Present Status of Bimetalism in Europe_
(1887), are of especial value upon monetary topics. In 1886 the Treasury
Department issued a volume of _Laws Relating to Loans, and the Currency,
Coinage and Banking_. Besides his annual report the Director of the Mint
publishes annually a report on the _Production of Gold and Silver in the
United States_. For an account of the Sub-Treasury system, see Bolle's
_Financial History of the United States_. Concerning the evils of this
system, see an article by Prof. J.L. Laughlin in the _North American
Review_, Vol. 137, p. 552.
Regarding the Silver Question and other important public questions
coming within the province of the Treasury Department, information can
be derived from recent periodicals. Poole's _Index to Periodical
Literature_ should also be consulted. An interesting account of the
Pension Office is contained in the _Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1890.
Regarding the Interstate Commerce Commission, see the book by Don Passes
in Putnam's "Questions of the Day" series. See also Political Science
Quarterly, Vol. II, pp. 223 and 369.
The Eleventh Census is now being compiled, and Bulletins are issued from
time to time by the superintendent. Postmaster-General Wanamaker has
recently issued a pamphlet in support of a _Limited Post and Telegraph_.
Concerning the constitutional powers possessed by executive officers,
see A. Conkling's _Powers of the Executive Departments_; de Chambrun's
_The Executive Power,_ and chapter VII of Willoughby's _Supreme Court of
the United States_. The _Official Register of the United States_, issued
annually in two large volumes, contains the names and positions of all
persons in federal employment. The second volume is devoted exclusively
to the Postal Service. Very many of the government reports mentioned in
this note will be sent to any address upon application.
_A descriptive catalogue of all government publications_ arranged in
chronological order, from 1774 to 1881, was prepared by B.P. Poore and
published by the government.
Federal Judiciary.
Among the treatises upon the practical working of the Federal Judiciary
are: B.R. Curtis' _Federal Courts_; Bryce's _American Commonwealth_; and
Willoughby's _Supreme Court of the United States_, already referred to.
For an excellent description of the relations between the Federal and
State courts, see Chamberlain's lecture published in _The Constitutional
History of the United States as seen in the Development of its Law_. The
reports of decisions of cases tried in the Supreme Court are contained
in one hundred and thirty-three volumes. Until 1875, these volumes were
known by the names of the reporters, viz.: Dallas, Cranch, Wheaton,
Peters, Howard, Black, and Wallace. Since 1875 they have been designated
simply as _United States Reports_.
Ordinance of 1787.
For text and comments see _Old South Leaflet_ No 13 (Heath & Co., price
five cents). For _The United States Constitution and the Ordinance of_
1787 _in Relation to Education_, see Magazine of American History,
September, 1888. See also Papers of the American Historical Association,
Vol. III; pamphlets by Dr. Poole and F.D. Stone, and Sato's _History of
the Land Question in the United States_, Johns Hopkins University
Studies, Series IV.
Territories.
The reports of the Governors of the various territories to the Secretary
of the Interior furnish an official source of information. Regarding the
government of, and conditions of admission of territories as States, see
especially Bannatyne's _Republican Institutions in the United States_.
State Governments.
For the text of State constitutions see B.P. Poore's _Federal and State
Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Lows of the United
States_, in two vols. (1877), published by the government. For further
information regarding State constitutions consult Davis' _American
Constitutions_, in the Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series III;
Jameson's _Introduction to the Constitutional and Political History of
the States_, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV; and
Hitchcock's _American State Constitutions_ (Putnam's "Questions of the
Day" series). See also of course Bryce's _American Commonwealth_. For
_Recent Tendencies in State Activities_, see paper by W.F. Willoughby,
to be published in the "Papers of the American Historical Association,"
Vol. V., and articles by Dr. Albert Shaw, entitled _American State
Legislatures_, in Contemporary Review, October, 1889, and _The American
State and the American Man_, in the same review for May, 1887. The
_Forum_ for November, 1890, contains an interesting description of the
_Six New States_, by Senator Cullom. For histories of the individual
States, see the series of "American Commonwealths," edited by H.E.
Scudder, and published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Those for Connecticut,
Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Kansas, California, Maryland, Kentucky, New
York, Ohio, Colorado, Oregon, and Virginia, have already appeared.
Local Government.
Among authorities on Local Government are various monographs upon this
subject in the several States, contributed to the _Johns Hopkins
University Studies in Historical and Political Science_. See also Bryce
and Bannatyne.
City Government.
See J.H.U. _Studies_, Vol. IV, Nos. 4, 10; Vol. V, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4; Vol.
VII, Nos. 1, 3, 4. Also supplementary volume, _Philadelphia, 1681-1887:
a History of Municipal Development_, by Allinson and Penrose. Simon
Sterne has an able article on "Cities" in Lalor's _Encyclopaedia_. See
also chapters in Bryce's great work, and articles in the Political
Science Quarterly for June, 1887, and June, 1889; Forum, Vol. II, pp.
260, 539; and Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1890.
The report of the New York Commission on "_A Plan for a New Government
of New York_," 1876, is valuable, as are also several of ex-Mayor
Hewitt's messages. Prof. Gniest has a suggestive article on Berlin, the
best governed city in the world, in the _Contemporary Review_, Vol. 46.
Shaw's article on Glasgow in the Century, March, 1890, is likewise
instructive. Spofford's _City of Washington and Growth of United States
Cities_ is interesting. Ely's _Taxation in American States and Cities_
contains many excellent suggestions for improvements in our methods of
municipal administration. See also Ely's _Problems of To-day_. Putnam is
publishing a series entitled _Great Cities of the Republic_. The Stories
of New York, Boston and Washington have thus far appeared.
Government Revenue and Expenditure.
Federal and State finance reports furnish official information.
Seligman's _Finances of American States and Cities_, published by the
American Statistical Association, 1890, is valuable, and furnishes
excellent statistical and tabulated information. Ely's _Taxation in
American States and Cities_ contains much information. Spofford's
article on _The Budget_ in Lalor's _Encyclopaedia_ is extremely
instructive. H.C. Adams' _Public Debts_ is one of the ablest financial
works in the English language. The proper administration of Federal and
State finances is discussed, and the subject of national and local debts
considered. Bolle's _Financial History of the United States_, in three
large volumes, is an able work, and can be consulted with profit.
Census Bulletins, Nos. 6 and 7, describe respectively _The Indebtedness
of States in 1880 and 1890_, and _The Financial Condition of Counties_.
Money.
See reports of the Director of the Mint, and of the Comptroller of the
Currency. See also Knox's _United States Notes_; Simmer's _History of
American Currency_, and text-books on _Political Economy_.
Public Lands of the United States.
Sato's _History of the Land Question in the United States_, Johns
Hopkins University Studies, Series IV, is the best book for reference.
The official source of information regarding the public lands is
Donaldson's enormous report of 1341 pages on _The Public Domain: its
History with Statistics_ (1884), published by the government (House
Executive Documents 47, Part 4, 46th Congress, 3d Session.) For a short
account of _The Disposition of Our Public Lands_, see an article by A.B.
Hart, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887. Statistical
tables are appended to this article.
Reconstruction.
See Johnston's article in Lalor's _Encyclopaedia_, and authorities there
cited. Also McPherson's _History of Reconstruction_, Dunning's _United
Stales Constitution in Civil War and in Reconstruction_, and W.E.
Foster's _References on the United States Constitution in Civil War_,
about to be published (1891).
Party Machinery and National Conventions.
See especially Bryce's _American Commonwealth_, and Ostrogorski's
_Organisation des parties politiques aux Etats-Unis_. On the Caucus see
Whitridge's _The Caucus System_, published as "Economic Tract" No. 8, by
the Society for Political Education, New York.
Political Parties.
Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_ contains a short
history of political parties by Professor Alexander Johnston. See also
Johnston's admirable manual, _History of American Politics_, a book
especially adapted for school use. Von Holst's _Constitutional and
Political History of the United States_, six volumes, contains the most
comprehensive treatment of the history of political parties. Schouler's
_History of the United States under the Constitution_, is an exceedingly
able and interesting work. Four volumes bring this history down to 1847.
The fifth volume soon to appear, will bring the narrative down to the
Civil War.
The first volume of Von Holst is especially interesting, as giving
statements of the various theories held regarding the origin and nature
of our constitution. Upon Nullification and Secession, see Von Holst's
_Life of Calhoun_; Stephens' _War between the States_; Greeley's
_American Conflict_; McPherson's _Political History of the Rebellion_;
and articles in Lalor's _Encyclopaedia_. The _American Statesman
Series_, now being published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., contains
valuable biographies of leading American statesmen. See especially in
this series Schurz's _Henry Clay_; Morse's _Jefferson_; Lodge's
_Webster_; and Von Holst's _Calhoun_. Upon the Economic contrasts
between the North and South, see Von Holst's Constitutional History,
Vol. I, Chapters IX and X. Taussig's _History of the Tariff_, gives the
best history of this much debated subject.