<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"></SPAN></p>
<h2> VII. POLITICS. </h2>
<p>In dealing with the State we ought to remember that its institution are
not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born; that they are not
superior to the citizen; that every one of them was once the act of a
single man; every law and usage was a man's expedient to meet a particular
case; that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good, we
may make better. Society is an illusion to the young citizen. It lies
before him in rigid repose, with certain names, men and institutions
rooted like oak-trees to the centre, round which all arrange themselves
the best they can. But the old statesman knows that society is fluid;
there are no such roots and centres, but any particle may suddenly become
the centre of the movement and compel the system to gyrate round it; as
every man of strong will, like Pisistratus, or Cromwell, does for a time,
and every man of truth, like Plato or Paul, does forever. But politics
rest on necessary foundations, and cannot be treated with levity.
Republics abound in young civilians, who believe that the laws make the
city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and
employments of the population, that commerce, education, and religion, may
be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be
imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a
law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which
perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the
character and progress of the citizen; the strongest usurper is quickly
got rid of; and they only who build on Ideas, build for eternity; and that
the form of government which prevails is the expression of what
cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a
memorandum. We are superstitious, and esteem the statute somewhat: so much
life as it has in the character of living men is its force. The statute
stands there to say, Yesterday we agreed so and so, but how feel ye this
article to-day? Our statute is a currency which we stamp with our own
portrait: it soon becomes unrecognizable, and in process of time will
return to the mint. Nature is not democratic, nor limited-monarchical, but
despotic, and will not be fooled or abated of any jot of her authority by
the pertest of her sons; and as fast as the public mind is opened to more
intelligence, the code is seen to be brute and stammering. It speaks not
articulately, and must be made to. Meantime the education of the general
mind never stops. The reveries of the true and simple are prophetic. What
the tender poetic youth dreams, and prays, and paints to-day, but shuns
the ridicule of saying aloud, shall presently be the resolutions of public
bodies; then shall be carried as grievance and bill of rights through
conflict and war, and then shall be triumphant law and establishment for a
hundred years, until it gives place in turn to new prayers and pictures.
The history of the State sketches in coarse outline the progress of
thought, and follows at a distance the delicacy of culture and of
aspiration.</p>
<p>The theory of politics which has possessed the mind of men, and which they
have expressed the best they could in their laws and in their revolutions,
considers persons and property as the two objects for whose protection
government exists. Of persons, all have equal rights, in virtue of being
identical in nature. This interest of course with its whole power demands
a democracy. Whilst the rights of all as persons are equal, in virtue of
their access to reason, their rights in property are very unequal. One man
owns his clothes, and another owns a county. This accident, depending
primarily on the skill and virtue of the parties, of which there is every
degree, and secondarily on patrimony, falls unequally, and its rights of
course are unequal. Personal rights, universally the same, demand a
government framed on the ratio of the census; property demands a
government framed on the ratio of owners and of owning. Laban, who has
flocks and herds, wishes them looked after by an officer on the frontiers,
lest the Midianites shall drive them off; and pays a tax to that end.
Jacob has no flocks or herds and no fear of the Midianites, and pays no
tax to the officer. It seemed fit that Laban and Jacob should have equal
rights to elect the officer who is to defend their persons, but that Laban
and not Jacob should elect the officer who is to guard the sheep and
cattle. And if question arise whether additional officers or watch-towers
should be provided, must not Laban and Isaac, and those who must sell part
of their herds to buy protection for the rest, judge better of this, and
with more right, than Jacob, who, because he is a youth and a traveller,
eats their bread and not his own?</p>
<p>In the earliest society the proprietors made their own wealth, and so long
as it comes to the owners in the direct way, no other opinion would arise
in any equitable community than that property should make the law for
property, and persons the law for persons.</p>
<p>But property passes through donation or inheritance to those who do not
create it. Gift, in one case, makes it as really the new owner's, as labor
made it the first owner's: in the other case, of patrimony, the law makes
an ownership which will be valid in each man's view according to the
estimate which he sets on the public tranquillity.</p>
<p>It was not however found easy to embody the readily admitted principle
that property should make law for property, and persons for persons; since
persons and property mixed themselves in every transaction. At last it
seemed settled that the rightful distinction was that the proprietors
should have more elective franchise than non-proprietors, on the Spartan
principle of "calling that which is just, equal; not that which is equal,
just."</p>
<p>That principle no longer looks so self-evident as it appeared in former
times, partly, because doubts have arisen whether too much weight had not
been allowed in the laws to property, and such a structure given to our
usages as allowed the rich to encroach on the poor, and to keep them poor;
but mainly because there is an instinctive sense, however obscure and yet
inarticulate, that the whole constitution of property, on its present
tenures, is injurious, and its influence on persons deteriorating and
degrading; that truly the only interest for the consideration of the State
is persons; that property will always follow persons; that the highest end
of government is the culture of men; and if men can be educated, the
institutions will share their improvement and the moral sentiment will
write the law of the land.</p>
<p>If it be not easy to settle the equity of this question, the peril is less
when we take note of our natural defences. We are kept by better guards
than the vigilance of such magistrates as we commonly elect. Society
always consists in greatest part of young and foolish persons. The old,
who have seen through the hypocrisy of courts and statesmen, die and leave
no wisdom to their sons. They believe their own newspaper, as their
fathers did at their age. With such an ignorant and deceivable majority,
States would soon run to ruin, but that there are limitations beyond which
the folly and ambition of governors cannot go. Things have their laws, as
well as men; and things refuse to be trifled with. Property will be
protected. Corn will not grow unless it is planted and manured; but the
farmer will not plant or hoe it unless the chances are a hundred to one
that he will cut and harvest it. Under any forms, persons and property
must and will have their just sway. They exert their power, as steadily as
matter its attraction. Cover up a pound of earth never so cunningly,
divide and subdivide it; melt it to liquid, convert it to gas; it will
always weigh a pound; it will always attract and resist other matter by
the full virtue of one pound weight:—and the attributes of a person,
his wit and his moral energy, will exercise, under any law or
extinguishing tyranny, their proper force,—if not overtly, then
covertly; if not for the law, then against it; if not wholesomely, then
poisonously; with right, or by might.</p>
<p>The boundaries of personal influence it is impossible to fix, as persons
are organs of moral or supernatural force. Under the dominion of an idea
which possesses the minds of multitudes, as civil freedom, or the
religious sentiment, the powers of persons are no longer subjects of
calculation. A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest can
easily confound the arithmetic of statists, and achieve extravagant
actions, out of all proportion to their means; as the Greeks, the
Saracens, the Swiss, the Americans, and the French have done.</p>
<p>In like manner to every particle of property belongs its own attraction. A
cent is the representative of a certain quantity of corn or other
commodity. Its value is in the necessities of the animal man. It is so
much warmth, so much bread, so much water, so much land. The law may do
what it will with the owner of property; its just power will still attach
to the cent. The law may in a mad freak say that all shall have power
except the owners of property; they shall have no vote. Nevertheless, by a
higher law, the property will, year after year, write every statute that
respects property. The non-proprietor will be the scribe of the
proprietor. What the owners wish to do, the whole power of property will
do, either through the law or else in defiance of it. Of course I speak of
all the property, not merely of the great estates. When the rich are
outvoted, as frequently happens, it is the joint treasury of the poor
which exceeds their accumulations. Every man owns something, if it is only
a cow, or a wheel-barrow, or his arms, and so has that property to dispose
of.</p>
<p>The same necessity which secures the rights of person and property against
the malignity or folly of the magistrate, determines the form and methods
of governing, which are proper to each nation and to its habit of thought,
and nowise transferable to other states of society. In this country we are
very vain of our political institutions, which are singular in this, that
they sprung, within the memory of living men, from the character and
condition of the people, which they still express with sufficient
fidelity,—and we ostentatiously prefer them to any other in history.
They are not better, but only fitter for us. We may be wise in asserting
the advantage in modern times of the democratic form, but to other states
of society, in which religion consecrated the monarchical, that and not
this was expedient. Democracy is better for us, because the religious
sentiment of the present time accords better with it. Born democrats, we
are nowise qualified to judge of monarchy, which, to our fathers living in
the monarchical idea, was also relatively right. But our institutions,
though in coincidence with the spirit of the age, have not any exemption
from the practical defects which have discredited other forms. Every
actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey the laws too well. What
satire on government can equal the severity of censure conveyed in the
word politic, which now for ages has signified cunning, intimating that
the State is a trick?</p>
<p>The same benign necessity and the same practical abuse appear in the
parties, into which each State divides itself, of opponents and defenders
of the administration of the government. Parties are also founded on
instincts, and have better guides to their own humble aims than the
sagacity of their leaders. They have nothing perverse in their origin, but
rudely mark some real and lasting relation. We might as wisely reprove the
east wind or the frost, as a political party, whose members, for the most
part, could give no account of their position, but stand for the defence
of those interests in which they find themselves. Our quarrel with them
begins when they quit this deep natural ground at the bidding of some
leader, and obeying personal considerations, throw themselves into the
maintenance and defence of points nowise belonging to their system. A
party is perpetually corrupted by personality. Whilst we absolve the
association from dishonesty, we cannot extend the same charity to their
leaders. They reap the rewards of the docility and zeal of the masses
which they direct. Ordinarily our parties are parties of circumstance, and
not of principle; as the planting interest in conflict with the
commercial; the party of capitalists and that of operatives; parties which
are identical in their moral character, and which can easily change ground
with each other in the support of many of their measures. Parties of
principle, as, religious sects, or the party of free-trade, of universal
suffrage, of abolition of slavery, of abolition of capital punishment,—degenerate
into personalities, or would inspire enthusiasm. The vice of our leading
parties in this country (which may be cited as a fair specimen of these
societies of opinion) is that they do not plant themselves on the deep and
necessary grounds to which they are respectively entitled, but lash
themselves to fury in the carrying of some local and momentary measure,
nowise useful to the commonwealth. Of the two great parties which at this
hour almost share the nation between them, I should say that one has the
best cause, and the other contains the best men. The philosopher, the
poet, or the religious man will of course wish to cast his vote with the
democrat, for free-trade, for wide suffrage, for the abolition of legal
cruelties in the penal code, and for facilitating in every manner the
access of the young and the poor to the sources of wealth and power. But
he can rarely accept the persons whom the so-called popular party propose
to him as representatives of these liberalities. They have not at heart
the ends which give to the name of democracy what hope and virtue are in
it. The spirit of our American radicalism is destructive and aimless: it
is not loving; it has no ulterior and divine ends, but is destructive only
out of hatred and selfishness. On the other side, the conservative party,
composed of the most moderate, able, and cultivated part of the
population, is timid, and merely defensive of property. It vindicates no
right, it aspires to no real good, it brands no crime, it proposes no
generous policy; it does not build, nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor
foster religion, nor establish schools, nor encourage science, nor
emancipate the slave, nor befriend the poor, or the Indian, or the
immigrant. From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to
expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate with the
resources of the nation.</p>
<p>I do not for these defects despair of our republic. We are not at the
mercy of any waves of chance. In the strife of ferocious parties, human
nature always finds itself cherished; as the children of the convicts at
Botany Bay are found to have as healthy a moral sentiment as other
children. Citizens of feudal states are alarmed at our democratic
institutions lapsing into anarchy, and the older and more cautious among
ourselves are learning from Europeans to look with some terror at our
turbulent freedom. It is said that in our license of construing the
Constitution, and in the despotism of public opinion, we have no anchor;
and one foreign observer thinks he has found the safeguard in the sanctity
of Marriage among us; and another thinks he has found it in our Calvinism.
Fisher Ames expressed the popular security more wisely, when he compared a
monarchy and a republic, saying that a monarchy is a merchantman, which
sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock and go to the bottom;
whilst a republic is a raft, which would never sink, but then your feet
are always in water. No forms can have any dangerous importance whilst we
are befriended by the laws of things. It makes no difference how many tons
weight of atmosphere presses on our heads, so long as the same pressure
resists it within the lungs. Augment the mass a thousand fold, it cannot
begin to crush us, as long as reaction is equal to action. The fact of two
poles, of two forces, centripetal and centrifugal, is universal, and each
force by its own activity develops the other. Wild liberty develops iron
conscience. Want of liberty, by strengthening law and decorum, stupefies
conscience. 'Lynch-law' prevails only where there is greater hardihood and
self-subsistency in the leaders. A mob cannot be a permanency; everybody's
interest requires that it should not exist, and only justice satisfies
all.</p>
<p>We must trust infinitely to the beneficent necessity which shines through
all laws. Human nature expresses itself in them as characteristically as
in statues, or songs, or railroads; and an abstract of the codes of
nations would be a transcript of the common conscience. Governments have
their origin in the moral identity of men. Reason for one is seen to be
reason for another, and for every other. There is a middle measure which
satisfies all parties, be they never so many or so resolute for their own.
Every man finds a sanction for his simplest claims and deeds in decisions
of his own mind, which he calls Truth and Holiness. In these decisions all
the citizens find a perfect agreement, and only in these; not in what is
good to eat, good to wear, good use of time, or what amount of land or of
public aid, each is entitled to claim. This truth and justice men
presently endeavor to make application of to the measuring of land, the
apportionment of service, the protection of life and property. Their first
endeavors, no doubt, are very awkward. Yet absolute right is the first
governor; or, every government is an impure theocracy. The idea after
which each community is aiming to make and mend its law, is the will of
the wise man. The wise man it cannot find in nature, and it makes awkward
but earnest efforts to secure his government by contrivance; as by causing
the entire people to give their voices on every measure; or by a double
choice to get the representation of the whole; or, by a selection of the
best citizens; or to secure the advantages of efficiency and internal
peace by confiding the government to one, who may himself select his
agents. All forms of government symbolize an immortal government, common
to all dynasties and independent of numbers, perfect where two men exist,
perfect where there is only one man.</p>
<p>Every man's nature is a sufficient advertisement to him of the character
of his fellows. My right and my wrong is their right and their wrong.
Whilst I do what is fit for me, and abstain from what is unfit, my
neighbor and I shall often agree in our means, and work together for a
time to one end. But whenever I find my dominion over myself not
sufficient for me, and undertake the direction of him also, I overstep the
truth, and come into false relations to him. I may have so much more skill
or strength than he that he cannot express adequately his sense of wrong,
but it is a lie, and hurts like a lie both him and me. Love and nature
cannot maintain the assumption; it must be executed by a practical lie,
namely by force. This undertaking for another is the blunder which stands
in colossal ugliness in the governments of the world. It is the same thing
in numbers, as in a pair, only not quite so intelligible. I can see well
enough a great difference between my setting myself down to a
self-control, and my going to make somebody else act after my views; but
when a quarter of the human race assume to tell me what I must do, I may
be too much disturbed by the circumstances to see so clearly the absurdity
of their command. Therefore all public ends look vague and quixotic beside
private ones. For any laws but those which men make for themselves, are
laughable. If I put myself in the place of my child, and we stand in one
thought and see that things are thus or thus, that perception is law for
him and me. We are both there, both act. But if, without carrying him into
the thought, I look over into his plot, and, guessing how it is with him,
ordain this or that, he will never obey me. This is the history of
governments,—one man does something which is to bind another. A man
who cannot be acquainted with me, taxes me; looking from afar at me
ordains that a part of my labor shall go to this or that whimsical end,—not
as I, but as he happens to fancy. Behold the consequence. Of all debts men
are least willing to pay the taxes. What a satire is this on government!
Everywhere they think they get their money's worth, except for these.</p>
<p>Hence the less government we have the better,—the fewer laws, and
the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government
is the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the
appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the
wise man; of whom the existing government is, it must be owned, but a
shabby imitation. That which all things tend to educe; which freedom,
cultivation, intercourse, revolutions, go to form and deliver, is
character; that is the end of Nature, to reach unto this coronation of her
king. To educate the wise man the State exists, and with the appearance of
the wise man the State expires. The appearance of character makes the
State unnecessary. The wise man is the State. He needs no army, fort, or
navy,—he loves men too well; no bribe, or feast, or palace, to draw
friends to him; no vantage ground, no favorable circumstance. He needs no
library, for he has not done thinking; no church, for he is a prophet; no
statute book, for he has the lawgiver; no money, for he is value; no road,
for he is at home where he is; no experience, for the life of the creator
shoots through him, and looks from his eyes. He has no personal friends,
for he who has the spell to draw the prayer and piety of all men unto him
needs not husband and educate a few to share with him a select and poetic
life. His relation to men is angelic; his memory is myrrh to them; his
presence, frankincense and flowers.</p>
<p>We think our civilization near its meridian, but we are yet only at the
cock-crowing and the morning star. In our barbarous society the influence
of character is in its infancy. As a political power, as the rightful lord
who is to tumble all rulers from their chairs, its presence is hardly yet
suspected. Malthus and Ricardo quite omit it; the Annual Register is
silent; in the Conversations' Lexicon it is not set down; the President's
Message, the Queen's Speech, have not mentioned it; and yet it is never
nothing. Every thought which genius and piety throw into the world, alters
the world. The gladiators in the lists of power feel, through all their
frocks of force and simulation, the presence of worth. I think the very
strife of trade and ambition are confession of this divinity; and
successes in those fields are the poor amends, the fig-leaf with which the
shamed soul attempts to hide its nakedness. I find the like unwilling
homage in all quarters. It is because we know how much is due from us that
we are impatient to show some petty talent as a substitute for worth. We
are haunted by a conscience of this right to grandeur of character, and
are false to it. But each of us has some talent, can do somewhat useful,
or graceful, or formidable, or amusing, or lucrative. That we do, as an
apology to others and to ourselves for not reaching the mark of a good and
equal life. But it does not satisfy us, whilst we thrust it on the notice
of our companions. It may throw dust in their eyes, but does not smooth
our own brow, or give us the tranquillity of the strong when we walk
abroad. We do penance as we go. Our talent is a sort of expiation, and we
are constrained to reflect on our splendid moment with a certain
humiliation, as somewhat too fine, and not as one act of many acts, a fair
expression of our permanent energy. Most persons of ability meet in
society with a kind of tacit appeal. Each seems to say, 'I am not all
here.' Senators and presidents have climbed so high with pain enough, not
because they think the place specially agreeable, but as an apology for
real worth, and to vindicate their manhood in our eyes. This conspicuous
chair is their compensation to themselves for being of a poor, cold, hard
nature. They must do what they can. Like one class of forest animals, they
have nothing but a prehensile tail; climb they must, or crawl. If a man
found himself so rich-natured that he could enter into strict relations
with the best persons and make life serene around him by the dignity and
sweetness of his behavior, could he afford to circumvent the favor of the
caucus and the press, and covet relations so hollow and pompous as those
of a politician? Surely nobody would be a charlatan who could afford to be
sincere.</p>
<p>The tendencies of the times favor the idea of self-government, and leave
the individual, for all code, to the rewards and penalties of his own
constitution; which work with more energy than we believe whilst we depend
on artificial restraints. The movement in this direction has been very
marked in modern history. Much has been blind and discreditable, but the
nature of the revolution is not affected by the vices of the revolters;
for this is a purely moral force. It was never adopted by any party in
history, neither can be. It separates the individual from all party, and
unites him at the same time to the race. It promises a recognition of
higher rights than those of personal freedom, or the security of property.
A man has a right to be employed, to be trusted, to be loved, to be
revered. The power of love, as the basis of a State, has never been tried.
We must not imagine that all things are lapsing into confusion if every
tender protestant be not compelled to bear his part in certain social
conventions; nor doubt that roads can be built, letters carried, and the
fruit of labor secured, when the government of force is at an end. Are our
methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless? could not a
nation of friends even devise better ways? On the other hand, let not the
most conservative and timid fear anything from a premature surrender of
the bayonet and the system of force. For, according to the order of
nature, which is quite superior to our will, it stands thus; there will
always be a government of force where men are selfish; and when they are
pure enough to abjure the code of force they will be wise enough to see
how these public ends of the post-office, of the highway, of commerce and
the exchange of property, of museums and libraries, of institutions of art
and science can be answered.</p>
<p>We live in a very low state of the world, and pay unwilling tribute to
governments founded on force. There is not, among the most religious and
instructed men of the most religious and civil nations, a reliance on the
moral sentiment and a sufficient belief in the unity of things, to
persuade them that society can be maintained without artificial
restraints, as well as the solar system; or that the private citizen might
be reasonable and a good neighbor, without the hint of a jail or a
confiscation. What is strange too, there never was in any man sufficient
faith in the power of rectitude to inspire him with the broad design of
renovating the State on the principle of right and love. All those who
have pretended this design have been partial reformers, and have admitted
in some manner the supremacy of the bad State. I do not call to mind a
single human being who has steadily denied the authority of the laws, on
the simple ground of his own moral nature. Such designs, full of genius
and full of fate as they are, are not entertained except avowedly as
air-pictures. If the individual who exhibits them dare to think them
practicable, he disgusts scholars and churchmen; and men of talent and
women of superior sentiments cannot hide their contempt. Not the less does
nature continue to fill the heart of youth with suggestions of this
enthusiasm, and there are now men,—if indeed I can speak in the
plural number,—more exactly, I will say, I have just been conversing
with one man, to whom no weight of adverse experience will make it for a
moment appear impossible that thousands of human beings might exercise
towards each other the grandest and simplest sentiments, as well as a knot
of friends, or a pair of lovers.</p>
<p><br/></p>
<hr />
<p><br/><br/><br/></p>
<p>NOMINALIST AND REALIST.<br/>
<br/>
In countless upward-striving waves<br/>
The moon-drawn tide-wave strives:<br/>
In thousand far-transplanted grafts<br/>
The parent fruit survives;<br/>
So, in the new-born millions,<br/>
The perfect Adam lives.<br/>
Not less are summer-mornings dear<br/>
To every child they wake,<br/>
And each with novel life his sphere<br/>
Fills for his proper sake.<br/></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />