TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.
[Revised from the New York Herald of April 16, 1870.]VICTORIA C. WOODHULL ON THE “TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.”
[Revised from the New York Herald of April 16, 1870.]VICTORIA C. WOODHULL ON THE “TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.”
[Revised from the New York Herald of April 16, 1870.]
VICTORIA C. WOODHULL ON THE “TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.”
[The head of the firm of Woodhull, Claflin & Co., Commodore Vanderbilt’s financialproteges—the famous brokers of Broad street—has undertaken the difficult task of correcting popular errors in the science of government, and has prepared a paper on the subject, which, as the lady expects to be too busy to deliver for some time to come, we publish itin extenso. Whether her conclusions will agree with her premises or not, the document will be found exceedingly interesting, as showing the quality of the female mind against which the money changers of Wall street will have to contend in business:]
As far back into the past as dim historic lights enable us to see, and still much farther, even behind the appearance of man upon the face of this planet, the existence of government can be plainly traced. Wherever two or more of any species of animals—not to descend lower and including man—are or have been, something simulating to what is in our day denominated government exists or existed; and, whether it is or was over a greater or less community, it is or was possessed of certain characterizing elements, from and by which a clear insight into the composition of the community can be obtained by those who willanalyze the elements somewhat philosophically; that is to say governments are truthful reflections of the governed when considered as a whole, and all changes or modifications that occur therein, result from growth of the governed.
No just nor advantageous deductions from any subject or fact which is worthy of a position in the world’s history, and which is capable of permanently maintaining such a position, can be arrived at, except through a complete philosophical analysis of all the elements entering into its composition. All facts as well as all chemical compounds are made up of elementary principles brought into intimate productive relations by some general power, operating by some general law of combination. By such an analysis the composition of such subjects and facts as are analyzed are not only determined, but the relations which they sustain to all other subjects and facts are also demonstrated, and thus a general law of relativity is found which makes the whole round of creation one in purpose and effect.
It is not proposed in the present article to prosecute an exhaustive analysis of government as it is or as it has been, but rather to observe the chain of progression which has been evolved, and to endeavor to determine whether, link by link, it does not form one harmonious whole, from the present aspect of which its culmination may be caught sight of; and whether that culmination will not be found a complete circle, containing within its immense area all that has conspired and assisted in its completion, and which will be entitled to positions in such a community of interests by virtue of having thus conspired and assisted in its formation.
Neither is it proposed to extend the limits of this inquiry beyond the consideration of human government, except in so far as analogies may be sought to enforce the application of general laws and to assist by such application in the solution of such questions as may not be entirely apparent from the evidences contained specifically within the said limits. Philosophically considered, however, the objects sought could as well be obtained from any other department of government; for, while a general law underlies all forms and systems of human government and controls all its modifications, the self-same law underlies and controls all other forms and systems of government, from which human government sprung and upon which it rests as a primary basis.
It is believed that there is sufficient mental development and comprehension contained in the philosophic minds of this latter part of the nineteenth century to gather into form the evidence that has beenand is being presented, in the evolution and dissolution of government, and grasp its signification, so that in its application to existing things, permanent instead of politic modifications in governmental affairs may be inaugurated. Governed by any other than such a broad standard, changes and modifications in present systems and forms are made simply to meet the exigencies of the times, and with no view to place government upon a basis which should never need modification, and which should meet all exigencies of all times. The reasons why such government has not hitherto been inaugurated or attempted, are, because in no country has the general mind as yet become sufficiently broad and comprehensive to discover that great general laws underlie the universe and govern all its manifestations, applying to each and every department thereof with perfect uniformity. It is not my province to discuss what these great general laws and principles are. I assume that they do exist, and it is my office to predicate what the future of government must be when it shall have its basis in such laws and principles, and to judge whether what has been, and what is, may be considered as gradual approaches from the most simple and homogeneous forms in which the interest of all were very indefinite, either individually or collectively, toward that wherein the interests of all, while becoming more distinct individually, shall be merged in the general interests of the whole and become identical therewith.
Mr. Maine says, in his “Ancient Law,” that “society in ancient times was not what it is assumed to be at present—a collection of individuals. In fact, and in view of the men that composed it, it was an aggregation of families. The contrast may be best and most forcibly expressed by saying that the unit of an ancient society was the family; of a modern society, the individual.”
In speaking of ancient society, Mr. Fiske says: “Family government excluded not only individual independence but also State supremacy; and that vestiges of a time when there were no aggregates of men more extensive than the family may be found in every part of the world, when social organization was but one step removed from absolute and ferocious anarchy;” and this he defines as a social aggregate of the first order; the coalescence of families into civic communities an aggregate of the second order; the coalescence of civic and tribual communities into the nation an aggregate of the third order. The coalescence of nations would then describe an aggregate of the fourth order. Under these four orders all the forms of government which can ever exist in the world must be classified.
As low a form of government as can be conceived as existing next above that of the family, worthy to be called human government, still exists among the barbarians inhabiting some portions of Central Africa, some of the East India Islands, and perhaps some of the South Sea Islands. These people unite in bands or tribes, and rove about seeking the means of subsistence and endeavoring to conquer other tribes. Some have central points of rendezvous, where the rudest habitations are constructed, in which the women and children remain during the absence of the men. The women almost universally are considered very much in the light of slaves by all these nomadic tribes, and as only fit to minister to their passions and to perform their drudgery. Their language is as rude as their habits, consisting of little more than a comparatively few spasmodically uttered harsh sounds. Written language they have none, excepting perhaps some images or rude figures symbolizing some special event they in this way attempt to commemorate, and which may be considered as the foundation of it for the tribes using them as they were the primary foundation of all written language.
One notable feature is universally observable among all these representatives of primitive government—they all recognize the necessity of a leader under some of the many forms of control exercised by the one over the many, and he is generally one who has exhibited some particular prowess in battle, the capacity to perform which he is supposed to be endowed with by some unknown power, and which renders him superior to all others, and best capable of ruling and protecting those who thus recognize him, and who obey him in every particular, even to sacrificing their lives. Such may be considered an outline of our conceptions of the most primitive form of government of the present day; and the fact that such still exists has a marked bearing upon the subject of general government, when it is remembered that the time was when no higher form existed on the face of the earth.
The law of evolution and that of dissolution being a universal deduction from the philosophic ultimatumthat force persists, they apply to all things wherein force is exhibited; consequently human government must be the objective result of the persistence of force exhibited among the people of the earth, and at the same time the subject of all modifications that grow out of its transformations and equivalent relations. In whatever light, then, human government is viewed, these philosophic laws should never be lost sight of nor disregarded; but the causes of all the rises and falls, transformations, modificationsand amalgamations, should be sought by the application of those laws to the objective points under consideration.
The question now naturally arises, Can human government, then be analyzed, and the facts it presents be found to correspond to the deductions of philosophic law?
It has been remarked that the simplest combinations of force among human beings, representing government which existed when none higher had been attained, was still represented on the earth by certain of its inhabitants. Beginning with this as the basis of the superstructure of human government, can there be traced a gradual scale of progress from it to the government of this country, in which scale each nation, tribe and tongue will find its appropriate place, which, unoccupied, would render the scale imperfect, as a chain would be imperfect were one of its central links missing? and would an analysis of each of these governments develop the fact that each successive one in the progressive scale would represent some new application of the principle of liberty, some more extended idea of equality, or some better formula of justice than the preceding had, which application, idea or formula entitles it to rank superior thereto, and also determines its position in the scale?
Of all systems and forms of government that came and passed away during the long lapse of ages, from the time the most primitive alone existed on the earth to the time wherein those flourished that have left records of their existence, we can know nothing except what may be gathered from philosophic deduction unsupported by any actual record of facts concerning them. It is, however, philosophically certain that very many such intermediate governments did exist, variously modified and advancing from the primitive forms. Possessing, as we may justly infer, but little capability for duration, their integration was rapidly succeeded by disintegration; being exposed to numerous and different external influences, rapid and successive changes were inevitable, because they were possessed of but little individuality and consequently but little capacity for resisting external influences. They were bound together by none of the higher laws of association, but were led by transient ephemeral contingencies, combining at times together, to soon divide and subdivide only to again form new and equally temporary amalgamations. Thus constantly organizing and dissolving, the long interval alluded to was occupied by primitive inhabitants in their march from the purely homogeneous toward the individualized times wherein civilization left records of itself.
While no special inquiries into the correctness of the formulas laid down at various times by various philosophers, which seek to include and cover all the phenomena of the universe, will be made, those of the most eminent may with propriety be stated; indeed, if it be attempted to show that history obeys a fixed law of evolution, the law that it is presumed to obey must be given, that it may be seen whether the deductions arrived at are included within the limits of the formula. If it should not so turn out, then either the deduction must be illegitimate, the formula imperfect or impossible, or the fact made apparent, that, while all the other sciences, as biology, psychology and their various divisions, are known to conform to certain well determined laws of causation, sociology, in which all history and government find their basis, conforms to no law, but is the product of the merest chance.
Until within the present century it was not claimed by any of the various philosophers who had flourished that there was such a science as sociology; or, if so claimed by any far-seeing mind, the attempt to demonstrate or formulate it was not made until the time of Comte, who, about the year 1830, did attempt it, and he may be justly styled the father of the present system of formulated science. Though his system is now shown to contain many imperfections and omissions, it is nevertheless certain, that but for it, the improvements since made would not have been possible to the present degree attained, though those who have made them may repudiate the idea, and scorn to acknowledge that they have built upon Comte.
Gathering from his profuse writings upon this point his earlier and most continuous opinions, the following are the terms in which they can be the most simply expressed: Social progression is a gradual change from rudimentary, homogeneous and anthropomorphic conditions to civilization, heterogeneity and to definite conceptions of the external world; and at the same time from nomadic characteristics, with aggressive purposes, to inhabitative propensities and individual industrial pursuits.
A number of philosophers, who have written since the days of Comte, have from time to time presented formulas which at best can only be considered as modifications of his, and it may confidently be asserted that no real addition was acquired until the Spencerian was made, which, while it included Comte’s, was more general and comprehensive, and at the same time more definite and special. This seeming anomaly was made possible by his having discovered the law of evolution, and by having exhaustively demonstrated that all mentalaction—emotional as well as intellectual—was included in it. It is as follows: Evolution is an integration of matter and a concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a partial transformation. This general formula includes all evolution, organic and inorganic, and interprets not only the genesis of the sidereal and solar systems and of the earth, but also of life upon the earth, and has become the law of all social, moral and intellectual change. He afterward found it necessary to make a supplement especially applicable to organic life, in such terms as should not include the inorganic. It was as follows: “Life—and intelligence being the highest manifestations of life—consists in the continuous establishment of relations within the organism, in correspondence with relations existing within the environment or the surroundings.”
To this exhaustive statement a late generalization and specialization has been made by Mr. Fiske, especially applicable to social evolution, as follows: The progress of society is a continuous establishment of psychical relations within the community, in conformity to physical and psychical relations arising within the environment, during which, both the community and the environment pass from a state of incoherent homogeneity to a state of coherent heterogeneity, and during which the constitutional units of the community become ever more distinctly individuated.
Having now arrived at that point where history must furnish the facts upon which the subject rests, it may be well to comprehensively recapitulate a perhaps somewhat too long introduction. It was seen that all over the face of the earth where human life was represented, government exists, and that this government was representative of one or another of the three orders of aggregates of individuals—the family, the tribal, or the nations, and that an aggregate of nations would add the fourth order. It was also seen that the evolution of government was the objective result of the persistence of force among its component parts. Fixing the basis of government in this philosophic fact, it was necessary to examine the history of government to see if in its evolution it had conformed to this law, according to present accepted formulas; and if so found to have done, to extend the same into the future, to ascertain if possible what the future would be. Thus by a present understanding of the law and its tendencies, all modifications and changes made in present systems and forms might be so made in harmonytherewith, and not with a simple view to meet the present exigencies, but with an understanding that would meet all exigencies of all time, which alone is perfect legislation.