how it affected his mind. One of his American critics has remarked, with great force, that "his practical observations are independent of his abstract theories, and his abstract theories have no connexion with his practical observations." Hence, in his remarks on the omnipotence of the majority, he contradicts many statements concerning the United States which he advanced in other portions of his work. He had seen with his own eyes the intolerance of party spirit in America, the suppression of free discussion, the erection of the worst form of despotism in the midst of a democracy, and under the title of liberty; and he was compelled to acknowledge that the discovery shocked and alarmed him. Had he spoken yet more plainly, his observations would have gained in usefulness, although his popularity might have been diminished. The American writer just quoted frankly says, "If his studies had been more protracted, more patient, more profound, and more consistent in their results, his book would have given far less satisfaction to the people of the United States. For they would not have borne from him, nor from any other man, without deep offence, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nor would his work have been hailed with such universal applause by the friends of democracy throughout the civilized world." The ordinary American does not give himself time to hear both

8

84 Southern Review,' April, 1867. (Baltimore, 1867.)

CHAP. VIII.

THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

157

sides of a question. He is quite satisfied with hearing the side which adapts itself to his prejudices and inclinations. The writings of his public journals are too often mere partisan appeals to his passions. The majority alone can make itself fully heard, for no one listens to the minority even when it is allowed a free voice. Burke maintained that this overbearing spirit was inseparable from a democracy,' and assuredly there is nothing quite equal to it anywhere in the world outside the United States. Mindful of the warning contained in the words of the American writer just referred to, I borrow also from an American an account of his country in respect of this particular abuse of liberty:-"It might easily be shown that every page of the history of the United States is written all over with the phrase,—the tyranny of the majority. The resolutions and acts of State Legislatures, the proceedings of local and of general Conventions, and, above all, the unread and silent annals of Congress, are each and all everywhere replete with the most melancholy proofs of the tyranny of the majority."

99 10

"Of this I am certain, that in a democracy the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority, whenever strong divisions prevail in that kind of polity, as they often must; and that oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. In such a popular persecution, individual sufferers are in a much more deplorable condition than in any other."-Burke, 'Reflections on the Revolution in France.' 10 Southern Review,' Vol. i. p. 314.

Any writer might well despair of conveying to those who have not examined closely and minutely into the subject for themselves, an adequate conception of the intolerance and the corruption which prevail in the political life of America. There is no point of view from which the observer sees the character of the people at so great a disadvantage as this. A relentless and implacable spirit animates political opponents. One faction pursues the other with fierce and uncompromising hatred, and adopts a thousand mean and dishonest expedients to destroy it. These offences may not be absent from party tactics elsewhere, but they are seen under peculiarly odious circumstances in America. The ordinary courtesies of life are too frequently violated in the Legislature. For a man to call his opponent a "traitor," and for the other to denounce his accuser as a "liar," causes scarcely any discomposure in the Chamber." There is an utter absence of any high or generous feeling as the standard of public life. "Destroy your adversary, blacken his character, injure his name, do anything to him but allow him fair speech and fair play,"—such is the advice that a leader of party might appropriately give if he were training a set of young politicians for the arena at the Capitol. No matter which side obtains the upper hand, a remorseless tyranny is immediately set

11 See the Congressional Globe' for 1866-67, where several cases of this kind are reported. In one instance a member caned another on the steps of the Capitol (July, 1866).

CHAP. VIII. THE BITTERNESS OF PARTY WARFARE.

159

in action. The antagonists sometimes end by destroying each other. The remnant of a shattered force reappears after an interval in altered dress and under a new name. The leaders watch the current of popular opinion, and try to swim with it, and according to their dexterity, their quickness of sight, and their flexibility of moral temperament, do they lose or recover the direction of affairs. Meanwhile, the people think they govern, and know that they actually can govern whenever they choose to stretch forth their hands. High-principled and honourable men there of course are in American parties, but by what colleagues, what associates, are they surrounded! How repulsive are the avenues by which alone they can pass to distinction ! However incorruptible and sturdy, however unassailable in his own principles, an American politician may be, he must often feel discouraged and humiliated when he looks round upon the men with whom he is obliged to act, and makes himself acquainted with the conditions upon which their support and fidelity must be purchased.

This vitiation of the true theory of the Republic by the struggles of parties was not unforeseen in the first days of its trial. Madison was obliged to make the confession that "complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens. . . . that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of

justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the supreme force of an interested and overbearing majority." 12 This eminent man believed that the remedy would be found in the extended area of the country, and the wide range over which party conflicts would have to be fought. By what process of reasoning he arrived at this conclusion it is hard to conjecture. The diffusion of parties is a cause of strength instead of weakness. The wider they are distributed, the more powerful they become, and nothing can be easier than to concentrate their energies upon particular localities when the occasion requires. It is no disadvantage to a general to have abundant reserves always at his command. The stringency of party discipline in America prevents a wide dispersion of partisans from being a source of embarrassment. In every State, in every county, in every town, there is a rallying-point for the adherents of each side. The press is active and well supported, the emoluments at the disposal of the party in power flow safely into distant channels, and the man who does his work knows that he is sure of his pay. He is not so far removed from the centre of government that it is safe for his leaders to treat him with neglect or ingratitude. Party was not destined to go through a purification by the means which Madison suggested. Only by the introduction into political life of men of a higher class

12 Federalist,' No. 10.