Introduction to the Study of the History of Political Parties in theUnited 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 hascontracted; 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 formedby the peopleas 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:McCullochv.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:Texasv.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 theirstatusin 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, ade jure, as well asde factonational 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.
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'sDemocracy in America, now fifty years old. Lalor'sEncyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy and American Historyis 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'sHand-book of Republican Institutions in the United Statesis 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'sThe Nation: the Foundation of Civil Order and Political Life in the United States; Laboulaye'sHistoire Politique des Etats-Unis,3 vols.; and Lamphere'sThe 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'sEnglish Constitution; Sir Henry Maine's chapter on theConstitution of the United Statesin hisPopular Government; E.A. Freeman's articlePresidential Governmentcontained in hisHistorical Essays(1871); Lord Brougham's chapter on theGovernment of the United Statesin hisPolitical Philosophy, Vol. 3; and E. Boutmy'sEtudes de droit Constitutionel.For current political information McPherson'sHand-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 theCongressional Recordrelating 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 onCivil 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'sCivil Government; Thorpe'sGovernment of the People of the United States; Martin'sCivil Government, and Ford'sAmerican 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 asEconomic TractNo. xxix, by the "Society for Political Education," New York.
Government.
Dr. J.C. Bluntschli'sLehre 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 titleThe Theory of the State. There is also a French translation of this work. Other authorities under this head are: Bluntschli'sStaatswörterbuch; Woolsey'sPolitical Science, or the State Theoretically and Practically Considered; and Montesquieu'sDe 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'sRepublic; Aristotle'sPolitics, Cicero'sDe Republica; Thomas Aquinas'Of the Government of Principles;Dante'sDe Monarchia; Machiavelli'sPrince; Jean Bodin'sOf the Commonwealth; Hobbes'Leviathan; Filmer'sPatriarcha; Hooker'sEcclesiastical Polity; Locke'sCivil Government; J.J. Rousseau'sSocial Contract; Bentham'sFragment on Government; J.S. Mills'Representative Government.
Pollock'sHistory 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 byRoutledge at one shilling per volume.
For theories regarding the origin and development of government, seeMaine'sAncient Law, Early History of Institutions, andEarly Law andCustom; Spencer'sPrinciples of Sociology, Vol. I; Morgan'sAncientSociety; McLennan'sStudies in Ancient History, andThe PatriarchalTheory; and Bagehot'sPhysics and Politics, published in the HumboltLibrary. The contract theory of government is presented in various formsin the works of Hobbes, Hooker, Locke and Rousseau.
Functions of Government.
The proper limits of state action are discussed in Mill'sEssay on Liberty; Huxley'sAdministrative Nihilism(Humboldt Lib.); Spencer'sSocial Statics, Man versus the State, The Coming Slavery, andThe Sins of Legislators(Humboldt Lib.); Stephen'sLiberty, Equality, Fraternity; Humboldt'sSphere and Duties of Government; and H.C. Adams'State in Relation to Industrial Action, published by the American Economic Association. Wilson'sThe Statecontains a valuable chapter upon the functions of government. For a description of existing forms of government, Prof. Woodrow Wilson'sThe Stateis very valuable. See alsoStatesmen's Year Books.
Colonial Governments.
Volumes III, IV, and V of Winsor'sNarrative 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, entitledThe 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 smallHistory of the United States, published as one of the volumes in "Freeman's Historical Course for Schools." Lodge'sShort History of the English Colonies in Americais 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'sCommentaries upon the Constitution. Pages 15 to 50 of Hannis Taylor'sOrigin and Growth of the English Constitutionare important. Fiske'sBeginnings of New Englandis an extremely interesting description of the early history of a single section. Steps Toward Union and Independence.
See especially Story'sCommentaries; Frothingham'sRise of the Republic of the United States; Scott'sDevelopment of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies in America; Fiske'sCritical Period of American History; and A.B. Hart'sFormation of the Union, 1763-1829, to appear in the series, "Epochs of American History." For the Albany plan of union see Franklin'sLife and Letters, Vol. 4. For an account of the causes leading to revolution written from an essentially English standpoint, see Lecky'sHistory of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. IV.
Articles of Confederation.
Best upon this subject are: Curtis'History of the Constitution;Marshall'sLife of Washington; Bancroft'sHistory of the UnitedStates; and Winsor'sNarrative and Critical History of America, Vol.VII, articleThe Confederationby the Editor. See alsoSecretJournals of Congress, and authorities cited above.
Constitutional Convention and the Adoption of the Constitution.
See authorities cited above, and J.A. Jameson'sTreatise on Constitutional Conventions. The official sources of information are: the meagreJournal, Acts, and Proceedings of the Convention; and Elliot'sDebates 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 ofDebates in the Federal Convention, frequently calledThe 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'sGeneral Principles of Constitutional Law, andConstitutional Limitations; Von Holst's, Hare's and Pomeroy's treatises on Constitutional Law. Story'sCommentaries on the Constitutionare invaluable. The character and value ofThe Federalisthave been noticed in the text (p. 25). On Constitutional Amendments, see Johnston's article onAmendmentsin Lalor'sEncyclopaedia. Concerning Constitutional developments, due to judicial construction, see Willoughby'sSupreme Court of the United States: its History and Influence in our Constitutional System, published in the Johns Hopkins Studies, Extra Vol. VII; andThe 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'sUnited States in Civil War and in Reconstruction. W.E. Foster has in press a pamphlet of references onThe United States Constitution in Civil War.
On Federal Government, see Jellinek'sDie Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen; and Hart'sIntroduction 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 asUnited 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 asRichardson'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'sAbridgment of Debatesin 16 volumes covers the period 1789 to 1850.
McPherson'sHandbook 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'sAmerican Commonwealth, and Woodrow Wilson'sCongressional 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'sDefence of Congressional Government, published in the papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. IV; A.L. Lowell'sEssays on Government; Bagehot'sEnglish 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), seeNorth 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 theNorth American Reviewfor 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 toEnquire 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 StateOn Foreign Relations, andTreaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers(1776-1887), published by the same department. TheConsular 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 theStatistical Abstractis issued annually by the Treasury Department. The reports published by the Department of State, of theInternational Conferences of 1878, and of1881, and that of Edward Atkinson onThe Present Status of Bimetalism in Europe(1887), are of especial value upon monetary topics. In 1886 the Treasury Department issued a volume ofLaws Relating to Loans, and the Currency, Coinage and Banking. Besides his annual report the Director of the Mint publishes annually a report on theProduction of Gold and Silver in the United States. For an account of the Sub-Treasury system, see Bolle'sFinancial History of the United States. Concerning the evils of this system, see an article by Prof. J.L. Laughlin in theNorth 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'sIndex to Periodical Literatureshould also be consulted. An interesting account of the Pension Office is contained in theAtlantic 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 aLimited Post and Telegraph.
Concerning the constitutional powers possessed by executive officers, see A. Conkling'sPowers of the Executive Departments; de Chambrun'sThe Executive Power,and chapter VII of Willoughby'sSupreme Court of the United States. TheOfficial 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 publicationsarranged 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'sAmerican Commonwealth; and Willoughby'sSupreme 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 inThe 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 asUnited States Reports.
Ordinance of 1787.
For text and comments seeOld South LeafletNo 13 (Heath & Co., price five cents). ForThe United States Constitution and the Ordinance of1787in 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'sHistory 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'sRepublican Institutions in the United States.
State Governments.
For the text of State constitutions see B.P. Poore'sFederal 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'sIntroduction to the Constitutional and Political History of the States, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV; and Hitchcock'sAmerican State Constitutions(Putnam's "Questions of the Day" series). See also of course Bryce'sAmerican Commonwealth. ForRecent 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, entitledAmerican State Legislatures, in Contemporary Review, October, 1889, andThe American State and the American Man, in the same review for May, 1887. TheForumfor November, 1890, contains an interesting description of theSix 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 theJohns 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'sEncyclopaedia. 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 theContemporary Review, Vol. 46. Shaw's article on Glasgow in the Century, March, 1890, is likewise instructive. Spofford'sCity of Washington and Growth of United States Citiesis interesting. Ely'sTaxation in American States and Citiescontains many excellent suggestions for improvements in our methods of municipal administration. See also Ely'sProblems of To-day. Putnam is publishing a series entitledGreat 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'sFinances of American States and Cities, published by the American Statistical Association, 1890, is valuable, and furnishes excellent statistical and tabulated information. Ely'sTaxation in American States and Citiescontains much information. Spofford's article onThe Budgetin Lalor'sEncyclopaediais extremely instructive. H.C. Adams'Public Debtsis 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'sFinancial 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 respectivelyThe Indebtedness of States in 1880 and 1890, andThe Financial Condition of Counties.
Money.
See reports of the Director of the Mint, and of the Comptroller of theCurrency. See also Knox'sUnited States Notes; Simmer'sHistory ofAmerican Currency, and text-books onPolitical Economy.
Public Lands of the United States.
Sato'sHistory of the Land Question in the United States, JohnsHopkins University Studies, Series IV, is the best book for reference.The official source of information regarding the public lands isDonaldson's enormous report of 1341 pages onThe Public Domain: itsHistory with Statistics(1884), published by the government (HouseExecutive Documents 47, Part 4, 46th Congress, 3d Session.) For a shortaccount ofThe Disposition of Our Public Lands, see an article by A.B.Hart, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887. Statisticaltables are appended to this article.
Reconstruction.
See Johnston's article in Lalor'sEncyclopaedia, and authorities there cited. Also McPherson'sHistory of Reconstruction, Dunning'sUnited Stales Constitution in Civil War and in Reconstruction, and W.E. Foster'sReferences on the United States Constitution in Civil War, about to be published (1891).
Party Machinery and National Conventions.
See especially Bryce'sAmerican Commonwealth, and Ostrogorski'sOrganisation des parties politiques aux Etats-Unis. On the Caucus see Whitridge'sThe Caucus System, published as "Economic Tract" No. 8, by the Society for Political Education, New York.
Political Parties.
Winsor'sNarrative and Critical History of Americacontains 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'sConstitutional and Political History of the United States, six volumes, contains the most comprehensive treatment of the history of political parties. Schouler'sHistory 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'sLife of Calhoun; Stephens'War between the States; Greeley'sAmerican Conflict; McPherson'sPolitical History of the Rebellion; and articles in Lalor'sEncyclopaedia. TheAmerican Statesman Series, now being published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., contains valuable biographies of leading American statesmen. See especially in this series Schurz'sHenry Clay; Morse'sJefferson; Lodge'sWebster; and Von Holst'sCalhoun. Upon the Economic contrasts between the North and South, see Von Holst's Constitutional History, Vol. I, Chapters IX and X. Taussig'sHistory of the Tariff, gives the best history of this much debated subject.