Page images
PDF
EPUB

Steele, in the last number of the Tattler, says that the general purpose of the whole has been to recommend truth, innocence and virtue, as the chief ornaments of life; this with equal justice may be applied to Hunt's writings. His purest and noblest effusions gush from a loving heart. He causes us to regard our fellow mortals with consideration and affection, as brother toilers on the earth, and heirs of a happy immortality. Nature has always worn the same unchanged face to him, for he has been true to himself, and, considering life a blessing, he has made it one. No writer has more strenuously inculcated a spirit of kindness and self-sacrifice, and he practices what he preaches. To use the affecting words of Jeannie Deans, "when the hour of death comes, that comes to high and low, then it is na what we hae dune for oursels, but what we hae dune for others, that we think on maist pleasantly." We are all in search of happiness-it is "our waking thought by day, our dream by night"-and yet, how find it? In truth, we become the slaves of others from want of independence of - character. We are afraid to trust the throbbings of our own heart, we fear the world's dread laugh, and our lives are passed in a feverish dream, seeking to equal or outshine those whose wealth gives them means of making a greater display. Very few please themselves, even in their amusements-they must do as the world does. 'Tis not fashionable to have a mind of your own. The vain and the idle," the trim, transient toys" that flutter in the gaudy blaze of society, forgive none that can live out of their circle-it is the greatest of treasons. Such persons are slandered, and their sanity called in question. Man should be happier than he is. We should cultivate simple tastes, and form ourselves after the true and beautiful. We would rather have been, for the real satisfaction of the thing-" for the sunshine of

the breast"-Izaak Walton, than Napoleon. The one enjoyed life in simplicity and thankfulness, which the other, in his purple career, never thought of. Life palls, we become sick at heart, and exclaim, "all is vanity and vexation of spirit." This arises from selfishness, for no one can be happy unless he seeks to make those happy around him.

"The only amaranthine flower on earth Is virtue, the only lasting treasure truth."

Religion is the basis of every estimable quality, and contentment and selfishness cannot exist together. He is the most mistaken of human beings who hugs himself in the vain idea that he can live happily when he lives for himself alone. The Spirit of God within him allows it not. His life and his immortal soul wage a continual war.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

CIVILIZATION: AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN.

We are arrayed into an infinite diversity of parties, and represent many and opposite tendencies. Each battles with uncompromising energy for the prevalence of his peculiar views. All is activity, agitation. The man who can raise himself above the dust and excitement of the arena, and divest himself of prejudice for either party, will not wish the contest hushed, though he may de sire its violence to be somewhat subdued and tempered. He will not wish any particular element or tendency to become exclusively predominant or to be entirely crushed. Extremes meet; and the result would be either a transition from one to the other no less restless and violent than the present fermentation, or else a worse transition to the lethargic quiet of social and political death. The highest glory and the chief hope of safety for our civilization, lie in the fact that it gives free scope to the great leading tendencies of human nature and human society-that it embraces and, to some extent, harmonizes them all. Our political system, for example, combines, in a high degree, the two great antitheses-the conservative and the progressive principles. On their preservation its salvation depends. The destruction of either would be the ruin of the other. And as, among us, unlike the case of the Europeans, the progressive is undoubtedly the strongest tendency, the reflecting friends of true freedom and progress are constantly called upon to lend their aid to the weaker side. But the natural consequence of the complete triumph of ultra-conservatism would be that the nation would at length burst with maddened fury from the strait-jacket imposed on it, and rush into the chaos of perfect anarchy. The cramped and tortured giant would prefer the cold, bare ground of savage lawlessness to the Procrustean bed of antiquity. On the other hand, the complete triumph of the ultra-progressive principle would probably result in a speedy transition to monarchy; and that monarchy would be despotism, as all past history teaches. We should thus be thrown from all our high and peculiar advantages into the same broad and downward road which others have trodden before us. Institutions essentially

[merged small][ocr errors]

There is always a vast difference between the ideal and the caricature of a thing. Partisans and controversialists look at the ideal of their own side and a caricature of their opponents'-hence their zeal and violence; while, if they could exchange the points of view, they would exchange characters also. Monarchists can see only a caricature of democracy-they cannot distinguish it from mobocracy; in like manner, we are apt to look at nothing but a caricature of monarchy, which is undistinguishable from despotism. But to the ideal of a monarchy, if it could be permanently realized, the democrat could have little objection; while to the ideal of a democracy, if that also could be permanently realized, the monarchist could have as little. Indeed, the two ideals will not substantially differ-only each, in its progress towards realization, regards a peculiar set of dangers. The one would guard against licentiousness on the part of the governed, the other against corruption and selfish misrule on the part of the governors-and unquestionably both dangers exist. The great question is, which of the two theories is the most practicable? Monarchy has been tried on a large scale in connection with modern civilization, and has undoubtedly accomplished many valuable purposes; but it seems incapable of securing, thoroughly and permanently, the highest purposes of civil society. It has been tried and found wanting. There is in the civilized world a very general yearning after a change. The most philosophical observers of Europe see and acknowledge that the democratical tendency is the tendency of the age. It remains to be seen whether democracy can perform the purposes in which monarchy has failed. The experiment never has

been and never could be tried, under so favorable circumstances as in our own case; if it fails with us, it fails for many ages, if not forever.

Self-government is not, as has been acutely but sophistically maintained by a late writer in the Democratic Review, a self-contradiction: Rather it is, morally and politically speaking, the highest problem of civilization-for it is, in these respects, the proper self-development of man. It by no means implies the rejection of an external rule, a law and an authority emanating from a source above us, and revealed to us as well as in us it only rejects such a rule and authority as emanating from a source which is not above us. Self-government begins with a reverential recognition of a supreme law its process is a constant endeavor to render that law objective, real, operative to externalize it, if we may use the term. It evolves the law not as derived from itself, but through itself and to itself from a supreme power. Does not every man who has struggled with temptation and sin know that self-gov. ernment is no absurdity? And the case of the intemperate man who has by himself resolved and re-resolved on reformation in vain, but who, after signing a public pledge, finds himself enabled to persevere, is an instance and an illustration of the nature and importance of that process by which the rule of conduct is conceived of and realized as exterior to ourselves. In the case of the nation that would govern itself, it is no less essential it should recognize this supreme law as paramount to its own will, and the objective rule of its conduct, than in the case of the individual. It is not, indeed, necessary that, according to the philosophy of monarchy, this supreme law should be visibly embodied in some particular person. This is a sort of political idolatry or Grand-Lamaism. But the law must be recognized, realized, submitted to as somewhat independent of the people's will and sovereign over it. The effort of a free people must ever be to render more dim the consciousness of governing, and more distinct that of being governed. They must think less and less of their right, and more and more of their duties; otherwise, instead of governing themselves, they will end, at best, in governing one another. A prevailing tendency to declaim against, decry and resist authority is of itself sufficient proof, that, where it exists,

self-government does not or will not long exist. It is the part of a slave to contend against the government of another; it is the part of a freeman to submit to his own. Not only is the posture of resistance to external authority not self-government, but, more than anything else, long continuance in such a posture unfits for its exercise. It is notorious that slaves just emancipated are most unfit to exercise their freedom, i. e., they have no use and no power of self-government; the whole tendency and habit of their minds have been resistance-resistance— resistance to all that ever was presented to them in the shape of government.

If such be the character and such the conditions of self-government, it will be seen that it is not yet thoroughly established among us. Let us not deceive ourselves; for many of the perils to our civilization are connected with the likelihood of a mistake on this point. We must remember that self-government is a thing not only most noble, but also most difficult.

We proceed to call attention, therefore, to some of the disadvantages, dangers and defects of our civilization. They may be grouped under two general heads our extravagant radical, and our equally extravagant utilitarian, tendencies. Let us begin with our radical tendencies, as being in immediate connection with the business of self-government.

We hesitate not to say, there is among us too strong a tendency to reduce all the elements of society to a common level. In calling it "too strong," we mean to admit and imply that it is a tendency not dangerous in kind-for it is a proper and necessary correction of other and opposite tendencies--but we mean also to assert that it may exist, and we believe it does exist, in an exorbitant and dangerous degree. It is a very prevalent notion among us that each individual has a full right to an equal voice and influence in the government and social institutions of the country, without any regard to his progress in intellectual and moral culture. Thus intelligence and ignorance, virtue and vice, are mixed up in one general average. This is a notion which the ignorant and vicious, of course, most greedily embrace and cherish, and its abettors are therefore sure of their support and suffrages. But does the self-government of the individual imply that all his faculties and propensities should have an equal voice in the

forum of his conscience? Does not every one see at once that such a state were an end of all government? A selfgoverning man is guided by the light of reason, and ruled by the law of conscience, while the lower principles of his nature are checked, restrained, reduced to obedience. Yet that reason and conscience, as well as those lower principles, are his own-are his very self. When a question of duty comes up, he does not call together all his powers, passions, appetites and desires, on a footing of perfect equality, and decide according to the major vote. Yet all these are present in the solemn council-all have their voice-all are heard. Better a thousand times be heard fully and patiently then, than come in with their disconcerting cries afterward. The whole man decides the question-the whole man submits to the decision-and it is executed accordingly.

So must it be with a self-governing people. Among them each individual has an influence, and has a right to an influence, not in the arithmetical ratio of one of the whole mass, but in the moral ratio of his intelligence and virtue-i. e., in proportion as those elements which in their own nature have a legitimate claim to authority predominate in his character. It is a government of intelligence and virtue, not of mere will, not of persons as such. If the ideal of a democracy were a government of mere persons-of arbitrary will-it were a thousand-fold more degrading and detestable than the very caricature of a monarchy. It is true that persons perform the functions of government, and persons obey the requirements of government. But those who govern, govern as representatives of certain ideas of order, justice, reason, legitimacy; and those who obey, obey in view of those ideas. Submission to mere personal will, in whatever form, is slavery. If now you ask, who shall distinguish the intelligent and virtuous from the ignorant and vicious? who shall classify them, and assign to each his proportionate influence? We answer, nobody in particular-we propose no individual censorship-but the whole society must determine the question by a sort of natural instinct and a truly self-governing society in a healthy state will determine it, and determine it correctly. We do not take it upon ourselves to say to any man in particular, your governmental rights are less than ours, nor is any other

man allowed to claim such superiority over us; but we do say that we and every man should feel that our rights to governmental influence-we speak not now of personal or private rights, or of rights to the protection of equal laws-our just share in controlling the course of society, are only according to our capacities, attainments, characters; and such influence we shall actually possess, and no more, in a sound, self-governing community. As to the boasted right of suffrage even, we go so far as to deny its very existence as a natural or moral right of each individual. The ignorant and vicious should not feel that they have any such right-it is allowed them as a legal right, or privilege, because it cannot be helped; because no safe means have been or can be devised to distinguish and separate them by any previous scrutiny from the rest of society. ought to feel that they enjoy this privilege on sufferance. It is an evil, though a necessary evil. It is a social disease, though we honestly believe that no remedy has been or is likely to be invented-such as a distinction of birth or property or what not-which is not worse than the disease. Therefore, when a people pretend to govern themselves, we insist upon universal suffrage at once, as a matter of fact, but not as a matter of right. But in order that a people may govern themselves, intelligence and virtue must also, as a matter of fact, maintain the controlling influence in spite of universal suffrage. And according as this is the result we may determine whether the experiment of self-government is in successful operation.

They

Civil society has certainly not reached its highest ideal in the forms of Shakerism or socialism. It is not a barren plain, or a shifting, shapeless heap of undistinguishable grains of sand, as some vainly dream. It is a living organisma well-compacted body. "Now we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office." These memorable and significant words were spoken by the holy apostle in reference to the church as a social, visible organization-an organization from whose constitution all physical force is banishedan organization which should develop itself spontaneously according to the highest moral laws of man's being under the guidance and energy of the indwelling Divine Spirit. And if these words, implying grades, subordination, system,

are true in reference to the church, most certainly are they true in reference to civil society. We are in danger of forgetting that society is a system-a system where all the parts have their proper functions and office and not a mere mass of elements placed in juxtaposition or jostled into a general average; nor yet a huge, hideous, headless, heartless trunk, whose every particle of flesh, bone, sinew and muscle is endued, and just equally endued, with consciousness, intelligence, life and energy: who would not shrink from the contact of such a monster with horror! The essential condition of true freedom in society as well as the individual, is not a lawless discordant equality of elements on the one hand, or a dead, monotonous level on the other, but a living, varied harmony. It were beautiful to see a man all whose powers and affections were thus attuned in sweet, spontaneous concert, based on the normal principles of his constitution; and beautiful to see society presenting such an aspect. But infinitely more noble are both the man and the society who have trained and disciplined themselves to such a state, than they who, if such a thing be possible, by external force and corruption have been constrained to it. Self-government is essential, therefore, to the highest elevation both of the individual and social man. Whether it be possible for human society, under the guidance of self-government, to attain such an ideal, or make any reasonable approximations to it, or whether it must ever remain under the tutelage of arbitrary rule, is one of the problems which in the Providence of God has been committed to us to solve in behalf of all man. kind.

We have said that, in rearing our social edifice, we have no rubbish to remove of the decaying and ruinous structures of antiquity. This is a great advantage, if we use it right. But at our present rate of progress, when are we likely to build any edifice at all? Do we not pull down as fast as we put up? An old house is better than none. What should we say, or where should we be, if every man were to remodel or rebuild his father's house the moment it came into his possession? We should soon come to live in a very miserable sort of hovels, or else should have little time for anything besides house-building. Now is not this precisely our social position? Indeed, to a fanciful view, the actual

state of architecture in this country appears emblematical of the stage of its civilization. Our very fundamental laws, our "constitutions," are daily undergoing changes; or, if to change them be too difficult, a temporary majority sometimes tramples upon them with impunity. We think that as a people we are in rapid progress-yet, in fact, are we not constantly beginning? In respect to social institutions do we build anything for permanence? If we do, we scarcely get beyond the foundations, and the next generation, if not the next election or next great voluntary society, rips up all our work to start on a new plan. It is to be feared this everlasting beginning will be the ruin of us. It is impossible for one generation to build up from the ground, a solid, spacious, well-proportioned fabric of social institutions; and were it possible, there is little encouragement to attempt it, if the next generation is sure to demolish the whole and begin anew. It is high time for us to have settled something-to be ready to take something for granted. If great changes are necessary, it is unfortunate, and progress must be proportionably checked; and the habit of making them is a still greater misfortune. When revolution and change are matters of ordinary preference, and not reserved for cases of stern necessity which knows no law-when they become the favorite rule and not the sad exception-the result must be monstrous. Contempt for the past is closely connected with a disregard of the future. "What right has my great grandfather to control me" and "What has posterity done for me?" are questions very nearly related. A man who has ill-treated his father is naturally suspicious of his children.

We are in great haste to abolish all those institutions which imply an imperfect state of society, forgetting that we may thereby destroy the very means of attaining perfection. We shall have to put up the scaffolding again. "Haste brings waste," says the English proverb. "Avarice bursts the bag," says Sancho. Many fancy that we are on the eve of a social and political as well as religious millenium. Social Chiliasm threatens to become the prevailing creed. There is abroad a sort of indistinct notion that we have only to pass a solemn resolution that we have reached a certain state and ape its fashions, and forthwith_we_are really there; not considering that facts are too stubborn things to yield to the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »