north america-2-第47部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

nce　of　the　United　States。

*　It　must　not；　however；　be　supposed　that　by　this　〃doing　in　convention；〃　the　Constitution　became　an　accepted　fact。　　It　simply　amounted　to　the　adoption　of　a　proposal　of　the　Constitution。　　The　Constitution　itself　was　formally　adopted　by　the　people　in　conventions　held　in　their　separate　State　capitals。　　It　was　agreed　to　by　the　people　in　1788；　and　came　into　operation　in　1789。

I　call　the　result　splendid；　seeing　that　under　this　Constitution　so　written　a　nation　has　existed　for　three…quarters　of　a　century；　and　has　grown　in　numbers；　power；　and　wealth　till　it　has　made　itself　the　political　equal　of　the　other　greatest　nations　of　the　earth。　　And　it　cannot　be　said　that　it　has　so　grown　in　spite　of　the　Constitution；　or　by　ignoring　the　Constitution。　　Hitherto　the　laws　there　laid　down　for　the　national　guidance　have　been　found　adequate　for　the　great　purpose　assigned　to　them；　and　have　done　all　that　which　the　framers　of　them　hoped　that　they　might　effect。　　We　all　know　what　has　been　the　fate　of　the　constitutions　which　were　written　throughout　the　French　Revolution　for　the　use　of　France。　　We　all；　here　in　England；　have　the　same　ludicrous　conception　of　Utopian　theories　of　government　framed　by　philosophical　individuals　who　imagine　that　they　have　learned　from　books　a　perfect　system　of　managing　nations。　　To　produce　such　theories　is　especially　the　part　of　a　Frenchman；　to　disbelieve　in　them　is　especially　the　part　of　an　Englishman。　　But　in　the　States　a　system　of　government　has　been　produced；　under　a　written　constitution；　in　which　no　Englishman　can　disbelieve；　and　which　every　Frenchman　must　envy。　　It　has　done　its　work。　　The　people　have　been　free；　well　educated；　and　politically　great。　　Those　among　us　who　are　most　inclined　at　the　present　moment　to　declare　that　the　institutions　of　the　United　States　have　failed；　can　at　any　rate　only　declare　that　they　have　failed　in　their　finality；　that　they　have　shown　themselves　to　be　insufficient　to　carry　on　the　nation　in　its　advancing　strides　through　all　times。　　They　cannot　deny　that　an　amount　of　success　and　prosperity；　much　greater　than　the　nation　even　expected　for　itself；　has　been　achieved　under　this　Constitution　and　in　connection　with　it。　If　it　be　so；　they　cannot　disbelieve　in　it。　　Let　those　who　now　say　that　it　is　insufficient；　consider　what　their　prophecies　regarding　it　would　have　been　had　they　been　called　on　to　express　their　opinions　concerning　it　when　it　was　proposed　in　1787。　　If　the　future　as　it　has　since　come　forth　had　then　been　foretold　for　it；　would　not　such　a　prophecy　have　been　a　prophecy　of　success？　　That　Constitution　is　now　at　the　period　of　its　hardest　trial；　and　at　this　moment　one　may　hardly　dare　to　speak　of　it　with　triumph；　but　looking　at　the　nation　even　in　its　present　position；　I　think　I　am　justified　in　saying　that　its　Constitution　is　one　in　which　no　Englishman　can　disbelieve。　　When　I　also　say　that　it　is　one　which　every　Frenchman　must　envy；　perhaps　I　am　improperly　presuming　that　Frenchmen　could　not　look　at　it　with　Englishmen's　eyes。　When　the　Constitution　came　to　be　written；　a　man　had　arisen　in　the　States　who　was　peculiarly　suited　for　the　work　in　hand：　he　was　one　of　those　men　to　whom　the　world　owes　much；　and　of　whom　the　world　in　general　knows　but　little。　　This　was　Alexander　Hamilton；　who　alone　on　the　part　of　the　great　State　of　New　York　signed　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　The　other　States　sent　two；　three；　four；　or　more　delegates；　New　York　sent　Hamilton　alone；　but　in　sending　him　New　York　sent　more　to　the　Constitution　than　all　the　other　States　together。　　I　should　be　hardly　saying　too　much　for　Hamilton　if　I　were　to　declare　that　all　those　parts　of　the　Constitution　emanated　from　him　in　which　permanent　political　strength　has　abided。　　And　yet　his　name　has　not　been　spread　abroad　widely　in　men's　mouths。　　Of　Jefferson；　Franklin；　and　Madison　we　have　all　heard；　our　children　speak　of　them；　and　they　are　household　words　in　the　nursery　of　history。　　Of　Hamilton；　however；　it　may；　I　believe；　be　said　that　he　was　greater　than　any　of　those。　Without　going　with　minuteness　into　the　early　contests　of　democracy　in　the　United　States；　I　think　I　may　say　that　there　soon　arose　two　parties；　each　probably　equally　anxious　in　the　cause　of　freedom；　one　of　which　was　conspicuous　for　its　French　predilections　and　the　other　for　its　English　aptitudes。　　It　was　the　period　of　the　French　Revolutionthe　time　when　the　French　Revolution　had　in　it　as　yet　something　of　promise　and　had　not　utterly　disgraced　itself。　　To　many　in　America　the　French　theory　of　democracy　not　unnaturally　endeared　itself　and　foremost　among　these　was　Thomas　Jefferson。　　He　was　the　father　of　those　politicians　in　the　States　who　have　since　taken　the　name　of　Democrats；　and　in　accordance　with　whose　theory　it　has　come　to　pass　that　everything　has　been　referred　to　the　universal　suffrage　of　the　people。　　James　Madison；　who　succeeded　Jefferson　as　President；　was　a　pupil　in　this　school；　as　indeed　have　been　most　of　the　Presidents　of　the　United　States。　　At　the　head　of　the　other　party；　from　which　through　various　denominations　have　sprung　those　who　now　call　themselves　Republicans；　was　Alexander　Hamilton。　　I　believe　I　may　say　that　all　the　political　sympathies　of　George　Washington　were　with　the　same　school。　　Washington；　however；　was　rather　a　man　of　feeling　and　of　action　than　of　theoretical　policy　or　speculative　opinion。　　When　the　Constitution　was　written　Jefferson　was　in　France；　having　been　sent　thither　as　minister　from　the　United　States；　and　he　therefore　was　debarred　from　concerning　himself　personally　in　the　matter。　　His　views；　however；　were　represented　by　Madison；　and　it　is　now　generally　understood　that　the　Constitution　as　it　stands　is　the　joint　work　of　Madison　and　Hamilton。*　　The　democratic　bias；　of　which　it　necessarily　contains　much；　and　without　which　it　could　not　have　obtained　the　consent　of　the　people；　was　furnished　by　Madison；　but　the　conservative　elements；　of　which　it　possesses　much　more　than　superficial　observers　of　the　American　form　of　government　are　wont　to　believe；　came　from　Hamilton。

*　It　should；　perhaps；　be　explained　that　the　views　of　Madison　were　originally　not　opposed　to　those　of　Hamilton。　　Madison；　however；　gradually　adopted　the　policy　of　Jeffersonhis　policy　rather　than　his　philosophy。

The　very　preamble　of　the　Constitution　at　once　declares　that　the　people　of　the　different　States　do　hereby　join　themselves　together　with　the　view　of　forming　themselves　into　one　nation。　　〃We；　the　people　of　the　United　States；　in　order　to　form　a　more　perfect　Union；　establish　justice；　insure　domestic　tranquillity；　provide　for　the　common　defense；　promote　the　general　welfare；　and　secure　the　blessings　of　liberty　to　ourselves　and　our　posterity；　do　ordain　and　establish　this　Constitution　for　the　United　States　of　America。〃　　Here　a　great　step　was　made　toward　centralization；　toward　one　national　government；　and　the　binding　together　of　the　States　into　one　nation。　But　from　that　time　down　to　the　present　the　contest　has　been　going　on；　sometimes　openly　and　sometimes　only　within　the　minds　of　men；　between　the　still　alleged　sovereignty　of　the　individual　States　and　the　acknowledged　sovereignty　of　the　central　Congress　and　central　government。　　The　disciples　of　Jefferson；　even　though　they　have　not　known　themselves　to　be　his　disciples；　have　been　carrying　on　that　fight　for　State　rights　which　has　ended　in　secession；　and　the　disciples　of　Hamilton；　certainly　not　knowing　themselves　to　be　his　disciples；　have　been　making　that　stand　for　central　government；　and　for　the　one　acknowledged　republic；　which　is　now　at　work　in　opposing　secession；　and　which；　even　though　secession　should　to　some　extent　be　accomplished；　will；　we　may　hope；　nevertheless；　and　not　the　less　on　account　of　such　secession；　conquer　and　put　down　the　spirit　of　democracy。　The　political　contest　of　parties　which　is　being　waged　now；　and　which　has　been　waged　throughout　the　history　of　the　United　States；　has　been　pursued　on　one　side　in　support　of　that　idea　of　an　undivided　nationality　of　which　I　have　spokenof　a　nationality　in　which　the　interests　of　a　part　should　be　esteemed　as　the　interests　of　the　whole；　and　on　the　other　side　it　has　been　pursued　in　opposition　to　that　idea。　　I　will　not　here　go　into　the　interminable　question　of　slaverythough　it　is　on　that　question　that　the　Southern　or　democratic　States　have　most　loudly　declared　their　own　sovereign　rights　and　their　aversion　to　national　interference。　　Were　I　to　do　so　I　should　fail　in　my　present　object　of　explaining　the　nature　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　But　I　protest　against　any　argument　which　shall　be　used　to　show　that　the　Constitution　has　failed　because　it　has　allowed　slavery　to　produce　the　present　division　among　the　States。　　I　myself　think　that　the　Southern　or　Gulf　States　will　go。　　I　will　not　pretend　to　draw　the　exact　line　or　to　say　how　many　of　them　are　doomed；　but　I　believe　that　South　Carolina；　with　Georgia　and　perhaps　five　or　six　others；　will　be　extruded　from　the　Union。　　But　their　very　extrusion　will　be　a　political　success；　and　will　in　fact　amount　to　a　virtual　acknowledgment　in　the　body　of　the　Union　of　the　truth　of　that　system　for　which　the　conservative　Republican　party　has　contended。　　If　the　North　obtain　the　power　of　settling　that　question　of　boundary；　the　abandonment　of　those　Southern　States　will