[Revised from the New York Herald of April 25, 1870.]
SECOND PART OF MRS. VICTORIA C. WOODHULL’S PHILIPPIC—LAWS, PEOPLES AND
COMMUNITIES FROM A FEMALE POINT OF VIEW—LESSONS IN HISTORY, POLITICS AND
WAR.
[Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull, head of the firm of female brokers in Broad
street, presents to the readers of the _Herald_ the following
communication, the second part of her paper on “The Tendencies of
Government,” the preface to which has already appeared. Mrs. Woodhull
has undertaken the difficult task of enlightening the public mind on the
best means of running the Government machine of America. Though her
views, expressed in this paper, have a wide range, it must be said that
she is but putting herself in wind for a tremendous attack on “the best
Government the world ever saw.” Being already in the race for the
Presidency (not of the Sorosis, but of the United States), her
pronunciamentos are of course very important:]
It must begin to be apparent that the proposition is, that the evolution
of government does not differ from that of simplest organic forms either
in principle or in mode of operation. The same laws that govern the
growth and multiply the plant also govern society and multiply it. The
same laws that bring fruit to perfection and dissolution perfect and
dissolve societies. The same laws that produce and control the units of
the animal kingdom produce and control the units of society. The same
law that governs the ebbing and flowing of the tides, that determines
whether the component parts of water shall exist as water or vapor,
determines the movements of society and the conditions of its existence;
and the same law that produces an earthquake here, a volcanic eruption
there or a terrific hurricane elsewhere, produces the earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions and the hurricanes that are ever modifying and
changing society. Symbols of all the various processes society passes
through in its growth and extension can be found in every other
department of the universe; or, to assert the same fact differently,
everywhere in the universe there is a constant effort to attain an
equilibrium—a continuous working to supply wants, an unceasing process
of demand and supply, which are universal exemplifications of the law
that motion is always in the direction of the least resistance or the
greatest traction, or the resultant of the two operating conjointly.
But what does history tell of the foundation and dissolution of
governments, and what illustrations of the law of progress does it
afford? As before stated, those who have most earnestly studied
pre-historic time have found ample evidence that the time was when the
head of the family was the highest sovereign power, and so absolute in
its character that the individual was entirely submerged in it, and
State supremacy was an impossibility. Nothing but anarchy and confusion
could have attended such rule; constant rivalry, jealousy and contention
must have kept up a continual strife between adjacent families, which
could know no settlement except through the subjugation or destruction
of the weaker of the contending parties. Of this order of governmental
aggregations, it is questionable if the earth at present furnishes any
illustrations, unless it be in some part thereof to which the discoverer
has not yet penetrated. Of the next, or tribal, order of aggregates, it
does, however; and with this second order the real analysis and
comparison must begin, though we have no objective means of
demonstrating the conditions stated as existing. When family sovereignty
was universal it can readily be seen that the continued existence of
such conditions would be impossible, for the continuous subjugations and
amalgamations of families would lead directly to tribal communities, at
first in absolute subjection to one tribe, which would grow into some
power, distributed among the several tribes. So also would the joining
together of several weak families to resist a more powerful neighbor
lead directly to confederation.
The subjugation and reduction of families to bondage and slavery was the
beginning of that system of interdependence now so broadly extended into
commerce, exchange and mutual dependence for almost the necessities of
life. In the times referred to every man was his own farmer, tailor,
carpenter and cook, and this condition was only modified when the
individuals of conquering families began to rely upon the conquered for
certain services they otherwise would have been obliged to render
themselves. All of these facts exemplify another philosophic
proposition—that for anything in the universe to remain in its
homogeneous condition is impossible, which impossibility is the result
of the fact that motion must produce change, while constant motion is
inevitable so long as force persists and matter resists.
That eminent historian of the third decade of the eighteenth century,
Rollin, thus remarks of the earliest monuments which are preserved,
treating of the progress from simple to complex forms of government:—“To
know in what manner the states and kingdoms were founded that have
divided the universe, the steps whereby they rose to that pitch of
grandeur related in history, by what ties families and cities united in
order to constitute one body of society, and to live together under the
same laws and common authority, it will be necessary to trace things
back in a manner to the infancy of the world and to those ages in which
mankind, being dispersed into different regions, began to people the
earth.” In these early ages every father was the supreme head of his
family; the arbiter and judge of whatever contests and divisions might
arise within it; the natural legislator over his little society, the
defender and protector of those who, by their birth, education and
weakness, were under his protection and safeguard. The laws which the
paternal vigilance established in this domestic senate being dictated
with no other view than to promote the general welfare, were concerted
with such children as were come to years of maturity and accepted by the
inferiors with a full and free consent, were religiously kept and
preserved in families as an hereditary polity, to which they owed their
peace and security.
But different motives gave rise to different laws. One man, overjoyed at
the birth of a first born son, resolved to distinguish him from future
children by bestowing on him a more considerable share of his
possessions, and giving him greater authority in his family. Another,
more attentive to the interests of a beloved wife or darling daughter,
whom he wanted to settle in the world, thought it incumbent on him to
secure her rights and increase her advantages. The solitary and
cheerless state a wife might be reduced to in case she should become a
widow affected more intimately another man, and made him provide
beforehand for the subsistence and comfort of a woman who formed his
felicity. In proportion as every family increased by the birth of
children and their marrying into other families, they extended their
domain, and by insensible degrees formed towns and cities. From these
different views and others of a like nature arose the different customs
and rights of nations.
These societies growing in time very numerous, and the families,
dividing into different branches, each having its head, it was necessary
to intrust one person with the whole in order to unite all these heads
under one authority and to maintain the public good by a uniform
administration. To heighten the lustre of this newly acquired dignity
and to cause them to devote themselves entirely to the public good, the
title of king was bestowed upon them and they were invested with full
power to administer justice and to punish crime.
At first every city had its particular king, who, being more solicitous
of preserving his dominion than of enlarging it, confined his ambition
within its limits But the unavoidable feuds that break out between
neighbors, the jealousy against a more powerful rival, the turbulent
spirit of a prince, his martial disposition or thirst for aggrandizing
himself and displaying his ability, gave rise to wars which frequently
ended in the entire subjugation of the vanquished and the addition of
their cities to the victors. Thus a first victory led the way to a
second, which, making a prince more powerful and enterprising, several
cities and provinces became united under one monarch, forming kingdoms
of greater or less extent, according to the degree the victor pushed his
conquests. Such was the origin of the famous empires that at times
included the greater part of the known world.
From various historical authorities the following summaries of history
are obtained, and are presented as containing some of the principal
points by which the general progress of the world should be judged. The
principal empires of ancient time will be observed separately; those of
modern time under one head, because of the more connected character of
their histories, and because of the more general knowledge that is
possessed of them. Then the general course events took will be noticed,
the deductions that legitimately flow from them introduced, and the
bearing they have upon present affairs of the world in reference to its
future condition of government considered.
There are several nations that have, at various times, and that still do
claim, the greatest antiquity. The Chinese, the Indians, the Syrians and
Egyptians appear to have the most evidence to support their claim. The
Egyptians once accorded it to the Phrygians, through the result of the
somewhat singular experiment of confining two children away from all
intercourse with the world until they began to cry, “_Beecos_,” which
was found to be the Phrygian word for bread. This word, Psammetichus,
the King decided must be of the original language, and consequently that
the Phrygians were the original people.
Manetho, a high priest in Egypt, who had charge of the sacred archives,
pretends to have extracted from the writings of Mercurius and to have
proved thereby that up to the time of Alexander the Great, whose reign
began 356 years B. C., there had been thirty dynasties in Egypt, which
together covered a space of more than 5,300 years. If this claim be
allowed, Egypt has existed 7,500 years. Herodotus says “that the
Egyptian priests computed 341 generations until the reign of Sethon,”
which began 719 years B. C. “These generations,” he adds, “make 11,341
years.” They also counted a like number of priests and kings, who had
succeeded one another without interruption, under the name of “Pyromas,”
signifying good and virtuous. These priests hewed 341 colossal statues
in wood of these Pyromas, all arranged in a large hall in the order of
their succession.
Let these claims be false or true, historians unanimously agree that
Menes was the first King of Egypt, and that his reign began 2,188 years
B. C., which would make its historic age about 5,000 years; undoubtedly
its fabulous age would cover a sufficient period to make what is
claimed, at least by Menetho, if not by the priests Herodotus mentions.
These claims will seem the more probable when we are informed that a few
ages only after Menes, the first King, one Busiris, built the famous
city of Thebes, and made it the seat of his empire, which would seem to
indicate that the arts and sciences had at that time been carried to a
considerable degree of perfection, not only in the building of cities,
but also in their adornment; for we are told that the public buildings
were decorated with sculptures and paintings of the most exquisite
beauty.
Additional force is also given these claims by the fact that Osymandyas,
the successor of this Busiris, collected a magnificent library at
Thebes, called “The Treasury of Remedies for Diseases of the Soul,”
which would indicate that polite learning had made considerable
advancement as well in philosophy as in religion. Historians also inform
us that Cham, the father of Misriam—the same with Menes—was the second
son of Noah, and it is supposed that he retired into Africa after the
“confusion of tongues.” He was doubtless the Jupiter Ammont so long
worshiped as a god by the Egyptians. We are also informed that this
Cham, or Ham, had three other sons—Chus, who settled Ethiopia; Phut, who
settled Africa westward from Egypt, and Canaan in the country that
afterward was called after him, and whose descendants were called
Phœnicians.
When we remember the so-called flood; that Cham was the second son of
Noah and the father of Menes, the first king, 2,189 years B. C., and
that 200 years later Osymandyas, one of his successors, was able to fit
out an expedition against the Bactrians of Asia, consisting of 400,000
foot and 20,000 horse, it must be conceded that if the “flood” destroyed
all the people existing on the face of the earth, except those saved in
the ark, the descendants of Cham must have multiplied with inconceivable
rapidity to have made the collecting of such an army possible. But this
is not more astonishing than the supposition would be that there could
be contained in the atmosphere surrounding the earth sufficient moisture
to form the amount of water, which, falling through a space of forty
days and nights, should cover the whole earth to the depth narrated of
Noah’s flood; nor more so than that the temperature of the whole earth
at that time should have been so uniform as to have permitted rain
throughout, instead of hail or snow, in frigid portions thereof. And if
we were to inquire where such a quantity of water was borrowed from and
returned, a consistent reply would be equally surprising; for it is now
known that there is just as large a quantity of the elements that
compose water at present as there was then.
Considerable latitude can be allowed the statements regarding the flood,
when it is remembered that the knowledge of geography, astronomy and
meteorology must have been exceedingly limited at that time. But if
credence is given to it as having occurred—and it is conceded that all
the people Noah knew were destroyed by it—and a solution is sought, it
can be imagined that a tremendous upheaval of mountains in Northern Asia
might have thrown the waters of the Arctic Ocean southward over the
country Noah dwelt in; but this could not have been the result of forty
days and forty nights rain, though it may have rained continuously
during that period, and may have been considered such by Noah.
This digression was not made so much to consider the probabilities of a
flood having occurred as to give additional force to the historic fact
that but a few generations after it is said to have occurred, immense
tribes of people did exist in that portion of the world bordering on the
eastern Mediterranean Sea, who were possessed of considerable general
knowledge, immense wealth, and, for that age, good ideas of governmental
justice; besides these people, it must also be remembered vast hosts of
barbarians existed in the more remote parts of Europe, Asia and Africa,
of whose origin and condition nothing can be positively known, either of
which bodies of people could not have descended from Noah’s family
through the common course of reproduction.
What concerns this inquiry most, is not whether all or any of the
narratives of ancient writers are entitled to credence, but how and in
what directions the ancient tribal nations extended themselves and
became merged one with another. Following the history of Egypt from the
time of Menes through the reigns of his successors—Busiris, Osymandyas
(whose mausoleum displayed such extravagant magnificence), and
Euchoreus, who built the famous Memphis and made it the key to the
Nile—on through the space of two hundred and sixty years of the Shepherd
Kings, from Phœnicia to Amosis, who expelled them, and reunited the
country, and to Sesostris, the most powerful king and the greatest
conqueror the world had then known, but little evidence of increasing
proficiency in science and art is found, but much that the acquired
standard was continually being extended among the people and among
surrounding nations.
With the reign of Sesostris a new era was inaugurated, and a mighty
impetus to general civilization, as well as to special advancement, was
given by his wisdom and foresight. Amenophis, the father of Sesostris,
no doubt feeling the weight of impending events, foresaw the necessity
of preparing him to meet them. He not only took great care that his
education in the arts and sciences, the principles of government,
philosophy and the art of war, should be complete, but also caused all
male children of Egypt born the same day he was, to be educated with
him, with the distinct understanding that they were to be his future
comrades, his officers, ministers and friends in the aggressive wars he
intended he should engage in when he should ascend the throne. It is
said that the celebrated Mercurius had charge over them all, especially
in politics, war and government.
The first war Sesostris engaged in was against the Arabs, which his
father sent him upon while yet quite young, that he might acquire
practical knowledge in conducting military campaigns. This people, who
had never before been subdued, he conquered, and added their country to
Egypt The next year he invaded Lybia, a country to the southwest of
Egypt. During this expedition his father died, leaving the throne to
him. He immediately formed a no less design than of conquering the whole
world. This was in 1491 B. C., and he was probably the first of the
great conquerors of ancient times who conceived the idea of reducing the
world to a single form of government, and most assuredly the first
possessed of sufficient wisdom to carry out so gigantic an undertaking.
The manner he set about to do this, and the capacity he evinced in all
the preparations, we shall have occasion to compare hereafter with that
pursued and shown by others in after time, simply remarking here that it
is safe to conclude that Sesostris was great among the greatest; for, to
boundless ambition—possessed by many—he united the capacity to sustain
it, which few can boast. While making the most extensive preparations
for raising and disciplining armies for foreign operations, he was not
less active in providing for sustaining the dignity and power of his
Government during his absence, which he foresaw would give opportunity
for rivals to attempt to overthrow for their own benefit. His first army
consisted of 600,000 foot, 24,000 horse, and 27,000 armed chariots, and
its principal officers were the 1,700 youths who had been educated with
him, and who now made it possible for him to secure perfect discipline
and the greatest efficiency.
With this army he first invaded and conquered Ethiopia, and made it
tributary to Egypt. He next fitted out an expedition of 400 sail, and
made himself master of all the islands and coasts of the Red Sea, as a
preparatory step to the conquest of Asia, then advanced into Asia,
subduing all the countries, even “beyond the Ganges.” Returning
westward, he conquered Scythia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Colchis, and all
Asia Minor: then crossed into Europe, and would probably have subdued
all its nations had he not encountered a great scarcity of provisions in
Thrace, which caused him to return. Herodotus says that the Egyptian
Empire extended from the Danube even beyond the Ganges, and included all
of Africa, and that all over this vast territory there were erected
pillars, on which was inscribed “Sesostris, king of kings and lord of
lords, subdued this country by the power of his arms;” which, while it
displayed a commendable spirit in marking the limits of his conquest, it
at the same time evinces a growing personal vanity that afterward
seriously tarnished his early fame.
After having thus conquered the then entire known world, Sesostris
returned to Egypt with innumerable captives and laden with spoils, and,
by devoting himself to enriching and benefiting Egypt, rather than to
extending his dominions, fame and grandeur, showed that his ambition had
expended itself in his first great campaign. From all that can be
gathered of his reign over Egypt, it must be inferred that no country
before, if since, was ever more happily disposed toward its sovereign.
The many monuments of his greatness, throughout his dominions, were
covered with inscriptions, asserting that all Sesostris’ mighty deeds
were accomplished without burdening his subjects; but, on the contrary,
they all had become able, through them, to pass the remainder of their
days in “calm and repose.”
Having subdued so much of the world, had he been equally ambitious to
extend over it the same beneficent Government that he held over
Egypt—which he could easily have done through the numerous competent
persons the foresight of Amenophis had provided him with, who were well
versed in his policy and administration of affairs—Sesostris would
undoubtedly have earned and been entitled to the appellation of the
world’s benefactor. It appears, however, that he did not exert himself
at all in this direction, but was content to receive the annual tributes
he levied to enrich Egypt proper. His reasons for pursuing this course,
rather than of endeavoring to reward his most worthy adherents by making
them rulers of the countries they had assisted him to conquer, are
incomprehensible, and that they should not have urged him to it equally
so. When it is considered how wisely and happily he governed Egypt, it
can be imagined how vastly he might have benefited the conquered people
by diffusing correct knowledge of the art of government among them
through extending his rule over them.
As it was, it came about, that various Egyptian colonies scattered here
and there over the conquered country, and in this way were instrumental
in spreading the wisdom of their nation. It was one of these colonies
that afterward became the famous Athens—the seat of learning, literature
and philosophy. It was about this time also that the use of letters was
introduced by one Cadmus, whom the Egyptians claimed to be of their
country; but the majority of writers agree that they originated in
Syria, and that they were identical with the Hebraic. Of these, however,
there were but sixteen, four others being added some two hundred and
fifty years later, and the remaining four a long time afterward.
The reign of Sesostris may justly be considered as having produced more
general and extended influence upon the world than that of any of his
ancestors of any country, and that nothing occurred that can hold any
degree of comparison to it until the time of Alexander, more than a
thousand years afterward. Sesostris was succeeded by Pheron, and he by
Proteus, who dedicated the beautiful temple to “Venus the Stranger,”
supposed to be “Helen of Troy,” famous for her beauty, and who was
stolen by Paris, from whom she was taken by Proteus and returned to the
Greeks.
Under succeeding reigns, the glory of Egypt began to decline, violence
and cruelty to usurp the places where justice and moderation had so long
prevailed, and jealousies, petty malice and personal aggrandizement to
take the place of that love of country which is superior to self; nor
could aught else have been expected from the ill-advised luxury and ease
the country obtained under Sesostris, which should have been converted
into action and expended upon tributary nations. The downward tendency,
or the disintegrating process, having begun, demonstrated that the
principle upon which Egypt rose and flourished had culminated, and was
now to be disseminated among other nations and tribes. Nor could any
effort of succeeding rulers, who saw the process at work and understood
the causes thereof, stop the downward tendency, which continued with but
temporary interruptions until the death of Tharaca, 687 years B. C.,
when the kingdom remained in a state of anarchy, until twelve noblemen
conspired to divide it among themselves. For some superstitious reasons
Psammetichus, one of the twelve, was banished; but he, entering into a
league with some Greeks, made war upon the eleven, defeated them, and
again united the kingdom under one rule, and remained sole possessor of
it until his death.
Six hundred and sixteen years B. C. one Nechos arose, who attempted the
cutting of a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, but was unsuccessful.
This, however, was partly atoned for by the accomplishment of a voyage
entirely around the coast of Africa by some skilful Phœnician sailors he
employed, they leaving Egypt by the Red Sea and returning by the way of
the Mediterranean after an absence of three years. This passage was made
some 2,000 years before the Portuguese discovered this way to the
Indies, by which these Phœnicians were able to enter the Mediterranean
through the Straits of Gibraltar.
Trouble after trouble now distracted the kingdom, and its power and
influence declined with every reign, until the Persians, under Cambyses,
525 years B. C., subdued it. Since the downfall of the Persian Empire,
Egypt has successively been subject to the Macedonians, Romans,
Saracens, Mamelukes, and lastly the Turks, by whom it is now nominally
possessed. The late accomplishment of the project Nechos failed in may
be prophetic of radical changes in the condition Egypt has so long been
submerged in—the indications being favorable for a return to
considerable importance among the nations of the earth.