were not considering the doctrine of the social compact; they were not considering the rights of minorities; they used the word 'people' as equivalent to 'nation,' as an organized political person. They were not thinking of scattered settlers, or predatory bands roaming over vast regions they could neither own nor occupy. They were affirming the right of each of the thirteen Colonies, or of all together, to throw off the yoke of George III., and to separate itself, or themselves, from Great Britain. Our fathers were here speaking of the equal rights of nations, of their duties to each other. "At what point do a few individuals acquire these rights of a people? The exact point where a few scattered settlements become a people, or a few nomadic tribes a nation, does not admit of precise mathematical definition. One cannot say, any more than we can say when a brook becomes a river, when a pond becomes a lake, or a lake becomes a sea. 99 1 It will be seen with this reasonable explanation of the maxim and of the conflict that brought it forth, that Jefferson did not violate this doctrine of the consent of the governed when he bought Louisiana in 1803, nor did John Quincy Adams when he acquired Florida in 1819, nor Sumner when he made his speech for Alaska in 1867. In 1780, when the Continental Congress was seeking to induce the States to cede their claims to the Northwest Territory to the Central Government, to be held as a common possession, Congress solemnly resolved and pledged itself that this territory should "be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union and have the same rights of Government sovereignty and freedom and independence as the other States." From this first accession of territory until to-day, in all of our acquisitions we have recognized fully this doctrine of the consent of the 2 Our System its Origin Self to the States and Territories. 1 Senator George F. Hoar, Speech in the United States Senate, April 17, 1900.-Cong. Record. Journals of Congress, 1780. by Consent vs. by Force. governed, by holding that territory so acquired should be held to be made into self-governing States. We have at times inconsistently postponed or delayed for a season the fulfilment of this principle. But it is clear that permanently refusing, or indefinitely postponing to recognize this principle of self-government within the Republic would be inconsistent with the principles of the Fathers. 4. It is not the purpose of this book to enter into the discussion of political philosophy. But if conflicting Government philosophies of life be applied to government, and if it be asked whether men had better be Government governed by coercive means or by persuasion, by the application of external force or by securing their inward consent, there can be no doubt as to which view is taught by the Declaration of Independence. There is just as little doubt as to which philosophy is founded in wisdom and experience. All just governments will finally rest their cause on the consent of the governed. Otherwise they will find ultimately that their foundations are insecure. This philosophy was applied to government in America long before the Declaration of Independence. When the Rev. Thomas Hooker prepared for Connecticut the "first written constitution known to history that created a government," he reflected his political democratic gospel that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people." According to this democratic principle, government is not to be looked upon as an end in itself. Government does not exist for the sake of good government alone,—that itself, as a thing apart from the people, may be perfect and well ordered. It exists for the benefit of the people governed; that its people may grow in civilization; that Exists for the they may be educated and uplifted; that they Development may be developed materially, mentally, morof Character. ally, spiritually. It is better for a people that Government they participate in their own government and learn by their blunders and errors than that they should not be free to commit blunders and errors, or that they should be compelled by outside authority and compulsion to pursue the right way. Governments may otherwise rule over subjects, dependents, and slaves, and keep them such,— but there is no other government for the development of men. Character comes by freedom and self-control, and no just government will ever be unmindful of this greatest end of its being, the development of character. Neither in politics nor in religion can salvation come in any other way. For this reason, also, we may insist upon "government by the consent of the governed." The Right of IV. In the fourth place our fathers asserted what we are accustomed to call the "right of revolution." "When any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government, such as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.' Revolution. One great end of government is protection,-to secure men in their rights to life, liberty, property, happiness, and home. But if government, instead of recognizing the rights of men, denies these rights; if, instead of protecting these rights, it violates them, it is no longer a righteous government and has no right to demand obedience and subjection. It may have power to rule, but it has no right to rule. "Government ceases to be an object of obedience when it becomes an instrument of oppression. This is not to teach that the citizen should resort to violence and revolution against every unjust act of government. The faithful citizen, as against an unjust government, will first seek all other means of self-preservation and defence. may submit and suffer a wrong to be done, He Remedies against an Unjust Government. as men usually do, rather than risk the greater evils of 1 Declaration of Independence. Godwin, Political Justice. resistance and revolution; he may appeal to the governing authority-to the king, to the nation, to public opinion -to right the wrong, as men should always do who live under a free constitution where there is the right of free discussion and free appeal; he may emigrate and refuse longer to live under what he considers an unjust government, as did many of the exiled founders of the United States. If all these means of defence fail he will be justified in seeking to overthrow a persistently unjust government. This will be his right and it may be his duty. But we, like our fathers, are to look upon revolution as a last resort: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.' Conditions The revolutionist, however, must show (1) that his cause is just, the government against which he struggles must be clearly an unjust government; (2) that there is no other remedy; (3) that the evils of submission are greater than those of resistance; (4) that, from the standpoint of wisdom and expediency, there are reasonable chances of success. However, a man determined upon liberty or death, who is willing to die for his cause, may be justified in facing immediate failure if this will prepare the way for subsequent success. 1 Declaration of Independence. Governments are often turned from an unjust course by an unsuccessful revolution. They fear the repetition of resistance. This is what Jefferson had in mind when he said that some resistance and bloodshed were necessary occasionally to keep governments in order.' V. "All men are created equal,"—in their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Law and government must recognize the equal claim of everybody to these rights. This involves an equal claim to all the means of life, liberty, and happiness, the opportunities and privileges that Equal Rights laws, institutions, and governments may af- Liberty, and ford. By government one person's happiness to Life, Happiness. must be counted for exactly as much as another's. "Everybody is to count for one, and nobody for more than one." Greek or Barbarian, Gentile or Jew, rich or poor, high or low, ignorant or learned, white or black,without regard to religion, station, lineage, color, race, or previous condition of servitude, -all must be treated without discrimination, must be put upon the same footing by government and law, and all must be allowed the fullest and freest exercise and development of their natural powers. As in play it is the business of the umpire to see that the rules of the game apply to all alike, the rich boy being given no special favor, the poor boy being denied no fair chance, so in the State it is the business of government to secure “equal rights for all, special privileges for none." This elemental maxim, so simple and self-evident to all fair-minded men, has been assailed and 'The utilitarian doctrine of Bentham would make revolution more readily justifiable. "It is the right and duty of every man to enter into measures of resistance when, according to his best calculations, the probable mischiefs of resistance appear less to him than the probable mischiefs of submission."-Bentham's Works, vol. i., p. 287. For further discussion of this topic see "The Rights of Man," by Lyman Abbott, The Outlook, vol. lxviii, No. 1, pp. 42-43, May 4, 1901. 2 Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. |