His words are
wisdom to those
legislators who
contemplate no
essential
reform in the existing government; but for thinkers,
and those who legislate for all tim, he never once glances
at the subject. I know of those whose
serene and wise
speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits
of his mind's range and
hospitality. Yet, compared with
the cheap professions of most
reformers, and the still
cheaper
wisdom an
eloquence of politicians in general,
his are almost the only
sensible and
valuable words,
and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always
strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his
quality is not
wisdom, but
prudence. The lawyer's truth
is not Truth, but
consistency or a
consistent expediency.
Truth is always in
harmony with herself, and is not
concerned
chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist
with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has
been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are
really no blows to be given him but
defensive ones. He is
not a leader, but a
follower. His leaders are the men of
'87. "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never
propose to make an effort; I have never
countenanced an
effort, and never mean to
countenance an effort, to disturb
the
arrangement as
originally made, by which various States
came into the Union." Still thinking of the
sanction which
the Constitution gives to
slavery, he says, "Because it was
part of the original compact--let it stand."
Notwithstanding his special acuteness and
ability, he is
unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations,
and behold it as it lies
absolutely to be disposed of by the
intellect--what, for
instance, it behooves a man to do here
in American today with regard to
slavery--but ventures, or
is
driven, to make some such
desperate answer to the
following, while professing to speak
absolutely, and as a
private man--from which what new and
singular of social
duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which
the governments of the States where
slavery exists are to
regulate it is for their own
consideration, under the
responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of
propriety,
humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations
formed
elsewhere, springing from a feeling of
humanity, or
any other cause, have nothing
whatever to do with it. They
have never received any
encouragement from me and they never
will. [These extracts have been inserted since the lecture
was read -HDT]
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have
traced up its
stream no higher, stand, and
wisely stand, by
the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with
reverence and
humanity; but they who behold where it comes
trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins
once more, and continue their
pilgrimage toward its
fountainhead.
No man with a
genius for
legislation has appeared in America.
They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators,
politicians, and
eloquent men, by the thousand; but the
speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is
capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day.
We love
eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth
which t may utter, or any
heroism it may
inspire. Our
legislators have not yet
learned the
comparative value of
free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a
nation. They have no
genius or
talent for
comparatively" target="_blank" title="ad.比较地;比较上">
comparativelyhumble questions of
taxation and
finance,
commerce and
manufactures and
agriculture. If we were left
solely to the
wordy wit of
legislators in Congress for our guidance,
uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual
complaints of the people, America would not long
retain her
rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though
perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has
been written; yet where is the
legislator who has
wisdom and
practical
talent enough to avail himself of the light which
it sheds on the science of
legislation.
The authority of government, even such as I am willing
to
submit to--for I will
cheerfully obey those who know and
can do better than I, and in many things even those who
neither know nor can do so well--is still an impure one: to
be
strictly just, it must have the
sanction and consent of
the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and
property but what I
concede to it. The progress from an
absolute to a
limitedmonarchy, from a
limitedmonarchy to a
democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the
individual. Even the Chinese
philosopher was wise enough to
regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a
democracy, such as we know it, the last
improvement possible
in government? Is it not possible to take a step further
towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There
will never be a really free and enlightened State until the
State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and
independent power, from which all its own power and
authority are derived, and treats him
accordingly. I please
myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be
just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as
a neighbor; which even would not think it in
consistent with
its own
repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not
meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the
duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this
kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it
ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and
glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet
anywhere seen.
End