Chapter 8

“We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[133]

Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he uses the following language:—

“The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of republican government, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgment of this right has been the mode in whicharistocracieshave been built on the ruins of popular forms.”[134]

Thus declaring himself against “aristocracies,” he naturally recognized the true idea; and here he was perplexed by the question of a property qualification, and the effort to reconcile it with “the right of suffrage,” which he calls “a fundamental article in republican constitutions.”[135]In another place, he says of “confining the right of suffrage to freeholders”: “It violatesthe vital principleof free government, that those who are to be bound by laws ought to have a voice in making them; and the violation would be more strikingly unjust as the lawmakers become the minority.”[136]Completely recognizing the great American principle, that just government can stand only on “the consent of the governed,” he is brought to this conclusion:—

“Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them.”[137]

In one of the most remarkable chapters of the “Federalist,” Madison gives expansion to this idea in his formal definition of a Republic:—

“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a Republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on,a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion,OR A FAVORED CLASS OF IT: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of Republic.”[138]

Thus, in few significant words, does this authority teach that a Republic is a government derived from “the great body of the people,” and not from “a favored class of it.” Better words could not be found for the American definition.

I repeat these two conditions of republican government according to Madison:First, the government must be derived from thegreat bodyof the people; and,secondly, it cannot spring from anyfavored class.

That the colored race should not be excluded from this definition may be justly inferred from his remark, already quoted, that “where Slavery exists therepublicantheory becomes still more fallacious,”[139]and also from his correspondence at a later day with Lafayette, whose devotion to the great principle of EqualRights was blazoned before the world. Writing to the latter, November 25, 1820, he said:—

“The Constitutions and laws of the different States are much at variance in the civic character given to free persons of color: those of most of the States, not excepting such as have abolished Slavery, imposingvarious disqualifications, whichdegradethem from the rank and rights of white persons.All these perplexities develop more and more the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade.”[140]

“Various disqualifications which degrade them”; “dreadful fruitfulness”: such are some of the terms in which judgment is recorded. Another letter, also to Lafayette, written as late as February 1, 1830, says:—

“Outlets for the freed blacks are alone wanted for a rapid erasure of the blot [of Slavery] from ourRepublican character.”[141]

Thus, in his opinion, was the treatment of this unhappy people inconsistent with the “Republican character.”

Hamilton follows with perhaps equal authority. Though approaching political questions from opposite points of view, we find him uniting with Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the definition he would supply:—

“As long as offices areopen to all menandno constitutional rankis established, it is pure republicanism.”[142]

Not for an oligarchy, but forall, is a Republic created. Then again he testifies for Equal Rights, and againstpartial distinctions:—

“There can be no truer principle than this, thatevery individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of Government.… We proposea free government. Can it be so, ifpartial distinctionsare maintained?”[143]

Again he says, in positive words:—

“A share in the sovereignty of the State, which is exercised by the citizens at large in voting at elections, is one of the most important rights of the subject,and in a Republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. It is that right by which we exist a free people.”[144]

He then exhibits the crowning lesson:—

“The principles of the Revolution taught the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting their liberty, or, in other words,their right to a share in the government. That portion of the sovereignty to which each individual is entitled can never be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought and bled.”[145]

More could not be said in the few words. But it is when Hamilton comes to consider the National Constitution and to expound its provisions, that, while recognizing the anomalous condition of Slavery, and exposing what he calls “the compromising expedient of the Constitution” by which “the slaveis divested of two fifths ofthe man,” he yet declares “the equal level of free inhabitants,” and announces, “that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away,the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.” Here is this important text,—which has additional authority when it is considered that it was attributed also to Madison,and indeed claimed by him, who thus acknowledged the sentiments as his own:—

“It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied to them in the computation of numbers;AND IT IS ADMITTED, THAT, IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS.”[146]

Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are restored to the rights which have been taken away,—in other words, if they become freemen,—they will be on the sameequal level, and entitled to the sameequal shareof representation with the other inhabitants. The two ideas of Equality and a Right to Representation, so early and constantly avowed by the Fathers, are here again recognized as essential conditions of government; and this is the true definition of a Republic.

With these great representative names to illustrate the American idea I might close the catalogue. Surely this is sufficient. But there are others, whose authority cannot be disregarded.

Here is the testimony of that inflexible spirit, who had thought and acted much, Samuel Adams, in a letter to his kinsman, John Adams:—

“That the sovereigntyresides in the peopleis a political doctrine which I have never heard an American politician seriously deny.…We, the people, is the style of theFederal Constitution. They adopted it; and, conformably to it, they delegate the exercise of the powers of government to particular persons, who, after short intervals, resign their powersto the people, and they will reëlect them, or appoint others, as they think fit.”[147]

Here also is the testimony of another Republican, who signed the Declaration of Independence, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John Adams:—

“What especially denominates it aRepublicis its dependence on thepublicorpeople at large, without any hereditary powers. But it is not of so much importance by what appellation the government is distinguished as to have it well constitutedto secure the rights and advance the happiness of the community.”[148]

There also was John Adams himself, who was the least distinct of all the Fathers on this question; but we find in the Preface to his Defence of the American Constitutions a passage full of prophetic meaning:—

“Thirteen governments, thus founded onthe natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor ofthe rights of mankind.”[149]

Here is a plain assertion that our Thirteen States were founded “on the natural authority of the people alone,” and that they were destined to spread over all North America.

Charles Pinckney, in a speech on the adoption of the Constitution, speaks for South Carolina:—

“The doctrine of representation is the fundamental of a republic.… As to the United Netherlands, it is such a confusion of states and assemblies, that I have always been at loss what species of government to term it. According to my idea of the word, it is not a republic; for I conceive it as indispensable in a republic that all authority should flow from the people.… A republic iswhere the people at large, either collectively or by representation, form the Legislature.”[150]

Luther Martin, an able representative of Maryland in the Convention, while vindicating a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves, said:—

“The privilege of importing them was unreasonable; and it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.”[151]

Afterwards, in his address to the Legislature of Maryland, he announced that both in the Committee and in the Convention he was influenced by the argument,—

“that Slavery is inconsistent withthe genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported,as it lessens the sense of the Equal Rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.”[152]

Thus was a “sense of the Equal Rights of mankind” one of the principles on which Republicanism rested.

And here is one more word from Virginia: it is Colonel Mason, who always spoke with so much point:—

“The true idea, in his opinion, was, thatevery man, having evidence of attachment to and permanent common interest with the society, ought to share in all its rights and privileges.”[153]

Again we have a plain recognition of the Revolutionary idea.

Here, also, is another authority. I quote a Virginia writer on Government,—John Taylor, of Caroline:—

“The end of the guaranty is ‘a republican form of government.’ The meaning of this expression is not so unsettled here as in other countries, because we agree in one descriptive character as essential to the existence of a republican form of government.This is representation. We do not admit a government to be even in its origin republican, unless it is instituted by representation; nor do we allow it to be so, unless its legislation is also founded upon representation.”[154]

I close this array, illustrative of opinion, with the words of Daniel Webster, in harmony with the rest:—

“Now, fellow-citizens, I will venture to state, in a few words, what I take these American political principles in substance to be. They consist, as I think, in the first place, in the establishment of popular governments on the basis of representation.…This representation is to be made as equal as circumstances will allow.”[155]

Then again, on another occasion, he said:—

“This is the true idea of a State. It is an organized government, representingthe collected will of the people, as far as they see fit to invest that government with power.”[156]

Thus, at every stage, from the opening, when Otis announced the master principle, “Taxation without representation is Tyranny,” all along to Daniel Webster, we find “Representation” an essential element in the American definition of republican government.

4. From authoritative opinions I pass topublic acts, which testify to the true idea of republican government. These are of two classes: first, by the United States, in their collective character; and, secondly, by the States individually.

Looking at the States in their collective character, we find that at the adoption of the National Constitution they refused to recognize any exclusion from the elective franchise on account of race or color. The Fathers knew too well the requirements of a republican government to sanction such exclusion. Recognizing Slavery as a transitory condition, soon to cease, they threw over it a careful oblivion; but they were none the less jealous of the rights of all freemen.The slave did not pay taxes, and, so far as he was a person and not property, he was part of the family of his master, by whom he was represented, so that in his case the commanding principle of the Revolution was not disturbed. But, becoming a freeman, the slave stepped at once within the pale of taxation, and therefore necessarily of representation,since the two are inseparable. And this consideration was the guide to our fathers.

The Continental Congress refused point-blank to insert the word “white” in the Articles of Confederation. The question came up, June 25, 1778, on these words: “The free inhabitantsof each of these States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities ofFREE CITIZENSin the several States.” The delegates from South Carolina moved, in behalf of their State, to limit this guaranty to “freeWHITEinhabitants.” On the question of inserting the word “white,” eleven States voted,—two in favor of the insertion, one was divided, and eight were against it. South Carolina, not disheartened, made another attempt, by moving to add, after the words “the several States,” the further clause, “according to the law of such States respectively for the government of their ownFREE WHITEinhabitants,”—thus seeking again to limit the operation of the guaranty. This proposition was voted down by the same decisive majority of eight to three. And thus did our fathers testify to the right of representation without distinction of color. On other occasions, for successive years, they constantly gave the same testimony.

A resolution of Congress in April, 1783, seconded by the report of a Grand Committee, of which Mr. Jefferson was Chairman, in April, 1784, recommended an Amendment of the Articles of Confederation, whereby the war expenses should be apportioned among the several States according to “the whole number of white andother free citizens and inhabitants,”—thus positively embracing colored persons. In the Act for the Temporary Government of the Territory “ceded or to beceded” to the United States, April 23, 1784, and drawn by Jefferson, the voters are declared to be the “free males of full age,” without distinction of color. In the famous Ordinance for the Government of the Northwestern Territory, drawn by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, adopted by the Confederation July 13, 1787, and then reënacted by our Congress after the adoption of the Constitution, the voters are declared to be “free male inhabitants of full age,”—again without distinction of color. Then came successive Acts of Congress for the government of Territories, where the rule in the Ordinance for the Northwestern Territory was followed, and there was no distinction of color. If this rule changed, it was only when the partakers in the Revolution and the authors of the Constitution ceased to exercise influence over public affairs. The testimony of the Fathers was constant, and it is only of this that I speak.

Turning from the States collectively, and looking at them individually, we find the same testimony. By the Constitution of New Hampshire, at the adoption of the National Constitution, the suffrage was vested in “every male inhabitant of each town and parish,” with certain qualifications, but without exclusion on account of color. By the Constitution of Massachusetts the suffrage was vested in “every male inhabitant,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. Rhode Island, at the adoption of the Constitution, was under her original colonial charter, which provided for elections by “the major part of the freemen of the respective towns or places,” without distinction of color. Connecticut was likewise under her original colonial charter,which also provided for elections by “the major part of the freemen of the respective towns, cities, and places,” without distinction of color. By the Constitution of New York the suffrage was vested in “every male inhabitant of full age,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Constitution of New Jersey it was vested in “all inhabitants of this Colony of full age,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Constitution of Pennsylvania it was vested in “every freeman of the full age of twenty-one years,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Declaration of Rights prefixed to the Constitution of Delaware it was announced that “every freeman, having sufficient evidence of a permanent common interest with and attachment to the community, hath a right of suffrage,” without distinction of color; and in the Constitution the suffrage was vested in “the freemen and inhabitants of the respective counties,” with certain specified exceptions, but without distinction of color. By the Constitution of Maryland the suffrage was vested in “all freemen above twenty-one years of age,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Constitution of North Carolina the suffrage was vested in “all freemen of the age of twenty-one years,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color; and this rule continued down to 1836, when the Constitution was amended, or rather, let me say, perverted. That eminent citizen, Judge Gaston, of North Carolina, in giving judgment at a later day, said: “It is a matter of universal notoriety, thatfree persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised thefranchise.”[157]To these States I add Tennessee, which was carved out of North Carolina, and followed her benign example. Her Constitution, adopted in 1796, vested the suffrage in “every freeman of the age of twenty-one years,” with certain qualifications, but without distinction of color; and this rule continued down to the perversion of the Constitution in 1834. Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, once Postmaster General, is reported to have said that he was originally elected to Congress by the votes of colored persons, and I have heard Mr. John Bell make the same confession with regard to himself.

Virginia was inconsistent and uncandid. By the Declaration of Rights prefixed to her Constitution it was announced that “ALL MEN, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage,” without distinction of color; and it is added, that they “cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consentor that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good.” This was entirely worthy of the eminent citizens who adorned that State. But a subsequent provision of the Constitution preserved the right of suffrage “as exercised at present”: thus embodying, without naming, the legislative exclusion of free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, “although such persons be freeholders.” This discreditable manœuvre becomes more notable in view of an incident in the early history of Virginia, curious and important, and also applicable to all the States during their colonial existence. It was on the enactment of a statute in 1723, “that no free negro, mulatto, orIndian whatsoever shall hereafter have any vote at the election of burgesses, or any other election whatsoever,”[158]when the tyranny here manifest was rebuked with unexpected plainness. The legal authority in England, to whom this colonial statute was submitted for review and approval, reported, in admirable words:—

“I cannot see why one freeman should be used worse than anothermerely upon account of his complexion.… To vote at elections of officers, either for a county or parish, &c., is incident to every freeman who is possessed of a certain amount of property.”[159]

Georgia was fitful. By her Constitution of 1777, in existence immediately anterior to the National Constitution, suffrage was confined to “malewhiteinhabitants.” But a Constitution adopted May 6, 1789, and another adopted May 30, 1798, accorded suffrage to “citizens and inhabitants,” with certain specified qualifications, but without the word “white.”

It only remains to speak of South Carolina, the persistent marplot of republican institutions, where, by the Constitution, the suffrage was vested in “every freewhiteman, and no other person,” with certain specified qualifications. This was the only State among the original Thirteen, unless Georgia be grouped with South Carolina, which at that time allowed a color discrimination in its Constitution. It was the only State which, after uniting in a National Declaration that “all men are created equal,” openly and audaciously commencedthe example of “a white man’s government.” This apostate idea, which has since played such a part as a disturber of the national peace, was then and there born, as the opposite idea was born in Massachusetts, under the inspiring words of James Otis. And the other States, in their Constitutions, followed this patriot voice. They spoke of “persons,” “inhabitants,” “freemen,” or, better still, “men,” without prefix of “white.” Color was not mentioned. But even in South Carolina, which introduced the discreditable tyranny into her Constitution, this exclusion was more apparent than real. In point of fact, even as late as 1790, when the first census was taken, there were in this State only one thousand eight hundred and one free colored citizens. Of course their exclusion was wrong, mean, and unrepublican; but I do not assert that it was such a case as to justify the interference of the nation to reform it, especially where there was no lapse of the State Government. On the other hand, its sufferance cannot be interpreted as a waiver of the principles for which the Revolution was fought. But even in South Carolina there had been a spasm of virtue. In 1757 there was a “flourishing negro school” at Charleston, and in 1709 we find a complaint that “even negroes” had been admitted to vote. Though denounced as an abuse, the precedent is authenticated by a disgusted inhabitant.[160]

Such are the public acts of the States, collectively and individually, at the adoption of the National Constitution, illustrating with rare harmony the American idea of a Republic, and testifying against any exclusionfounded on color. Add to these, that the National Constitution, carefully excepting from the basis of Representation “Indiansnot taxed,” pays open homage to the principle that there can be no taxation without representation; add then that it expressly founds the Government upon “the people,” not only in the preamble, which begins “We the people,” but also in providing that the House of Representatives shall be “chosen by the people of the several States”; add also the crowning fact, that it recognizes no distinction of color, that it treats all with the same impartial justice, that the word “white” does not appear there, and who are we, Sir, who dare foist into this Magna Charta an oligarchical idea which finds no sanction in its republican text?

Here I bring this part of the argument to a close. We have seen the origin of the controversy which led to the Revolution, when Otis, with such solid claim, insisted upon Equal Rights, and then, giving practical effect to the grand demand, sounded the battle-cry, “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny”; we have followed the controversy in its anxious stages, where these principles were constantly asserted and constantly denied, until it broke forth in battle; we have seen these principles adopted as the very frontlet of the Republic, when it assumed its place in the family of nations, and then again when it ordained its Constitution; we have seen them avowed and illustrated in memorable words by the greatest authorities of our history; lastly, we have seen them embodied in public acts of the States collectively and individually; and now, out of this concurring, cumulative, and unimpeachable testimony,constituting a speaking aggregation absolutely without precedent, I offer you the American definition of a Republican form of government. In vain do you cite philosophers or publicists, or the examples of former history. Against these I put the early and constant postulates of the Fathers, the corporate declarations of the Fathers, the avowed opinions of the Fathers, and the public acts of the Fathers, all with one voice proclaiming, first, that all men are equal in rights, and, secondly, that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; and here is the American idea of a Republic, which must be adopted in the interpretation of the National Constitution. You cannot reject it. As well reject the Decalogue in determining moral duties, or reject the multiplication-table in determining a question of arithmetic.

Counter to this irresistible conclusion there can be only one suggestion having any seeming plausibility, and this is founded on the contemporary recognition of Slavery. On this point, it is enough, if I remind you, first, that our fathers did not recognize Slavery as a permanent part of our system, but treated it as exceptional and transitory, while they concealed it from view by words which might mean something else; secondly, that the slave was always regarded, legally and politically, as part of the family of his master, according to the nomenclature of Blackstone’s Commentaries, much read at the time, where master and servant are grouped with husband and wife, parent and child, and, as in the case of wife and child,the slave is represented by the head of the family, who also paid taxes on his account, so that in his case the cardinal principle of the Revolution, associating representation and taxation together,was not essentially violated; and, thirdly, that by the acts of the Continental Congress, and generally by the State Constitutions, all distinction of color was discarded in determining the elective franchise, and that illustrious expounders of the National Constitution, as if anticipating the very question before us, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, announced in the “Federalist,”IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS. Such was the understanding, and such the promise, at the adoption of the Constitution. Such was the declared meaning of our fathers, according to the concurrent contemporary testimony of Hamilton and Madison. Therefore, while confessing sorrowfully the terrible inconsistency in recognizing Slavery, and throwing over their shame the mantle which the son of Noah threw over his father, we must reject every argument or inference on this account against the true idea of a Republic, which is none other than a government where all citizens have anequal voice. As Washington, by divine example, gave to mankind a new idea of political greatness, so did the Fathers, by inspired teaching, give to mankind a new idea of Government. Do you ask again for authority? I offer it in its many forms. It is the early Vocabulary of James Otis, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin; it is the Dictionary of the Revolution; it is the Lexicon of our National History; it is the Thesaurus of Public Acts. This new idea was the great discovery of our fathers. Rob them of this, and you take their highest title to gratitude. Columbus, venturing into an unknown sea, discovereda New World of Space; but our fathers, venturing likewise, discovered a New World of Public Duty. It is for us, their children, to profit by their discovery.

For determining the meaning of our own Constitution in a momentous requirement without precedent, American authority and example are enough; but I would not have you forget that the conclusion on which I rest is grandly sustained by France. Here I shall be brief.

I cannot begin with a higher name than Montaigne, who, though never defining a Republic, let drop words which, coming from such a master, are invaluable:—

“Popular rule seems to me the most natural and equitable.” “Equality is the first part of equity.”[161]

In the same spirit, Montesquieu, while failing to supply a precise definition, helped to elevate the idea of republican government, when he declared “virtue” its inspiration, and that virtue is the love of equality.[162]A kindred thought is expressed by a publicist of our time, in a remarkable study on Montesquieu, when he says, that “the true principle of democracy is justice.”[163]But justice is equality.

Contemporary with Montesquieu was the Marquis d’Argenson, a minister of Louis the Fifteenth and the friend of Voltaire. In a work written as early as 1739, but not seeing the light till 1764, some time after his death, when it was attributed to Rousseau, this remarkable character gives utterance to words worthy of perpetual memory:—

“It is only necessary to lay aside the most stupid prejudice, to admit that two things are chiefly to be desired for the good of the State: one, that all the citizens shall be equal among themselves; the other, that each shall be the son of his works.”[164]

A government where these two things are assured would be a Republic indeed.

Voltaire, though not professing to define a Republic, taught its dependenceupon equality:—

“Civil government isthe will of all, executed by one or by manyin virtue of laws for which all have voted.” “The republican is undoubtedly the most tolerable of all governments, because it is that which brings men most nearly to natural equality.”[165]

In another place the same illustrious teacher said:—

“The people never desire, and never can desire, anything but Liberty and Equality.”[166]

Advancing in time, the Republic becomes more manifest. Omitting the fervid words of Jean Jacques Rousseau, I adduce Condorcet, whose consecration to truth was sealed by a tragical death:—

“I have ever thought that a Republican Constitution,having Equality for its basis, was the only one in conformity with Nature, with reason, and with justice,—the only one which could preserve the liberty of the citizens and the dignity of the human race.”[167]

Belonging to the ancient system of France, and, like Lafayette, with the rank of Marquis, Condorcet, again like Lafayette, not only accepted the Republic, but declared its true basis.

Another French authority, of eminent experience in diplomacy, who wrote coldly and only according to the requirement of reason, Gérard de Rayneval, asserts the same law of Equality:—

“Political Liberty consists in the right to participate in public affairs. This participation is direct or indirect, and it is more or less extended according to the form of government. It is, then, necessarily unequal. For example,in a Democracy all the citizens participate in the legislative power. If they delegate it, they have only a very indirect part in it; but all can become delegates or representatives, all can arrive at administrative employments, and all have the right to protest against abuses. In aristocratic republics political liberty is exclusively concentrated in the body of Notables; they alone exercise all the power; subjects have only civil liberty.”[168]

Such, in France, is the voice of political science.

It is also the voice of the French Revolution. The one idea which that great event taught with prevailing influence was the Equal Rights of All, explained and defined by the new-born formula, that “all are equal before the Law.” Napoleon recognized the supremacy of this principle, when, in an official address to the Council of State, he said, “France loves Equality above everything”;[169]and he sought to enforce it, when, in an early proclamation, he declared, “Let there be no headwhich does not bend under the empire of Equality.”[170]Such is human inconsistency, that shortly afterwards his own ambition refused to bend under this empire, which none the less disowned the sceptre he assumed and the nobles he created. But the great truth, though trampled down, survived in the hearts of the French people, to rise again and resume its heritage.

As the Provisional Government of 1848 proclaimed the Republic, it was careful, after proper deliberation, to proclaim at the same time “universal suffrage,” which Lamartine, standing on the steps of the Hôtel de Ville, and speaking in the name of the Government, said was “the first truth and only basis of every National Republic.”[171]This proclamation was itself submitted to the vote of “all the citizens”; and on the terms of this submission another member of the Government, of solid sense and perfect fidelity, thus expresses himself:—

“By these words—all the citizens—the Provisional Government intended to consecrate definitively the fundamental principle of democracy; it intended to proclaim boldly and forever the inalienable, imprescriptible right inherent in each member of society to participate directly in the government of his country; it intended to put in practice really and loyally the great principles hitherto shut up in the domain of the abstract theories of philosophy.”[172]

The same person, M. Garnier-Pagès, who was at once an eminent actor in these scenes and their most authentic historian, thus again dwells on the true idea of a Republic:—

“The Republic, that government ofall by all, where each has his place, his duty, and his right; the Republic, that is to say, Liberty itself, the liberty to do every act and to give utterance to every thought not prejudicial to others; the Republic, that fraternal ground where are admitted all parties, the representatives of the past as well as of the future, where all minds, all associations, can have free scope.”[173]

This precise definition is fitly crowned by the remarkable words revealing the soul of De Tocqueville:—

“I should, I think, have loved Liberty at all times, but in the times in which we live I feel inclined to adore it.… There is no legislator sufficiently wise and sufficiently powerful to maintain free institutions,if he does not take Equality for first principle and symbol. All our contemporaries, then, who would create or assure the independence and dignity of their fellow-men, must show themselves the friends of Equality; and the only worthy way of showing themselves such is to be so. Upon this depends the success of their holy enterprise.”[174]

To the authentic testimony of modern France, in harmony with our own country, I add the definition of a very recent foreign publicist, who, after dwelling on Equality as the idol sentiment of a Republic, says:—

Back to Index Next