Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

realistic or the ideal, for the most part, preponderates, yet neither the ideal nor the realistic should be absent from either the nation or the individual.

first of all, the politics of interest; yet English politics is not wanting in the ideal, as is proved by the immense influence English ideas of popu lar rights and political freedom have exercised in the world. French politics prefers the ideal, and always advances an idea as its flaming beacon. Napoleon III. boasted that, "Only the French were ready to go to war for an idea!" But, by the side of this idealism, French politics manifests strong features of realism. The French never yet scorned to get in return for their ideal enthusiasm the highest material advantages. This Europe has always been made to feel, whether France happened to be governed by legitimist kings, by revolutionary directors or presidents, or by Napoleonic emperors. - During the last centuries the German nation did not succeed in establishing a harmonious union between realistic and ideal politics. It unfortunately vacillated hither and thither, between the realistic pressure of absolute governments, and nebulous, idealistic dreams. Prussian politics was the first to understand how to collect and intensify the bodily reality of the forces of the people, by proposing higher tasks to the nation. The greatest of these, the unification of Germany and the rise of the German empire, are due chiefly to the efforts of Prince Bismarck, whom people, by way of preference, designate as a realistic politician; who, in fact, better than any other living statesman, knowshow to estimate and reckon with actual forces, but who, at the same time, is uncommonly fertile in ideal thoughts, and, on the whole, allows himself to be determined by the ideas of a national and masculinely free state organization, adapted to the nature and destinies of the German people; and who, accordingly, is an ideal. politician, as well as a realistic one.

and who thought, that, by the wave of some magic | Count Cavour. In individuals and nations the wand, they might revive the class differences of the middle ages, their pious clergy and knights, and fill our modern industrial world with monasteries and castles. Germany had different kinds-English politics is predominantly realistic, and, of such romanticists, longing for an imaginary middle age: romantic kings, longing for the revival of the theocratic feudal system, and romantic students, who reveled in visions of the national black, red and gold (the German tricolore before 1866). Both failed in actual politics. But even celebrated statesmen have occasionally fallen into this same error. Thus, imagination had a large share in the Egyptian campaign of Napoleon I.; and his nephew at Strasburg and Boulogne was carried away by very childish fancies. The statesman, however, may legitimately work on the imagination of peoples, and hold up to their mental vision pictures of greatness, power and freedom, in order to increase their energy of action. But the statesman should never rely on the imagination; he must beware lest the latter weaken entirely, when brought into contact with stern reality. The politics of feeling is another kind of false ideal politics. In politics, leadership belongs to reason, wisdom and masculinity. When politics allows itself to be guided by passion or excited feeling, by love or hatred, by fear or revenge, it goes dangerously and easily astray, and is certain to be worsted. It is doubtful whether the politics that in the middle ages produced the crusades should be ascribed to the imagination, or to over-excited religious feeling; at all events, it was one-sided and unfortunate politics. Religious wars, with all their ruinous effects, must be ascribed entirely to the politics of feeling. Senseless race hatred, a blot on humanity, a hatred which sometimes exists between kindred nations and tribes, is calculated to mislead the best feelings of a people, and to play a ruinous part in politics. The right course, therefore, is not the separation, but the union, of real and ideal politics. The realistic side forms the basis of rational politics; the ideal side is its guiding star. The former has to do chiefly with the means; the latter, with the ends. -It is with politics as with art. The mere naturalist, who faithfully paints stone, wood, woolen or silken stuffs, is no true artist, unless he employs his talent in the service of the beautiful. But the man who draws beautiful lines, and is unfaithful to nature, satisfies us no better. Great artists, like Michael Angelo and Raphael, were both realists and idealists. Shakespeare is the greatest of poets because, in his works, truth to nature is united with the most abundant wealth of thought, in such perfect harmony that the two are bound indissolubly together. But only in the greatest statesmen do we see the personification, so to speak, of such a combination of realistic and ideal politics; as, for instance, in Pericles and Alexander the Great, in Julius Cæsar, in Charlemagne and King Henry I., in Frederick II. of Prussia and Washington, in Lord Chatham and Pitt, in Napoleon I., in Baron von Stein and

J. C. BLUNTSCHLI.

POLK, James Knox, president of the United States 1845–9, was born in Mecklenburgh county, N. C., Nov. 2, 1795, and died at Nashville, Tenn., June 15, 1849. He was graduated at the university of North Carolina in 1818, was admitted to the bar in 1820, and served as congressman (democrat) 1825-39. (See CONGRESS, SESSIONS OF.) He was governor of Tennessee 1839-43, and in 1844 was elected president. (See ELECTORAL. VOTES, XV.) For the principal events of his administration see ANNEXATIONS, III.; WARS, V.; WILMOT PROVISO; FREE-SOIL PARTY; INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS; TARIFF. His personal resemblance to Jackson, their general agreement in political feeling, and their neighborhood in birth, life and death, gave him the popular sobriquet of "young hickory."-See Hickman's Life of Polk (1844); Chase's Administration of Polk (1850); Jenkins' Administration of Polk (1851); 3 States

man's Manual, 1537; 3 Woodbury's Works; 2 | labor being determined by the local administration. Benton's Thirty Years' View, 737.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

This charge passed through various forms, and finally became the tare personnelle of the present day, which is based upon the value of three days' POLL TAX (Fr., taxe personnelle or capitation; labor. But as the tariff for estimating the money Ger., kopfstener), a tax levied upon each poll or value is the same that was used in the last centhead of population. It is one of the most ancient ury, although wages in the meantime have douband universal taxes, being met with in the history led and even tripled, the revenue is small, and of almost every nation, and has survived in many much less than it ought to be.-In some countries countries to the present day. Although a very of Europe, as, for example, Russia and Hungary, unequal tax, in that it takes from each payer a the poll taxes appear to have been paid to the like sum, irrespective of his circumstances, and al- landlord, but in the other cases, and they form though it is not in its simplest form an elastic tax, much the larger number, they have been paid to the ease with which it is collected has recom- the government. In the former instances they mended its adoption. It is a direct tax, and when may be regarded as a sort of rent, but in the latter imposed upon laborers forms a tax upon wages. they are taxes upon wages. In England a poll Adam Smith (book v., chap. ii.) claims that such tax was first levied during the reign of Richard taxes when collected upon slaves are properly II., and its subsequent history forms quite an imtaxes upon the profits of a certain species of stock portant episode in history. In 1377, to meet the employed in agriculture. —Aristotle ("Econom- demands of the treasury, in addition to the usual ics") mentions one instance of a tax of two minas taxes and duties, a new charge of a groat a head imposed upon those who possessed no real prop- was imposed, which was intended to reach every erty, but it was exceptional, as all direct taxes, person in the realm. In 1379 it was renewed in a whether levied on the soil, trades or persons, were somewhat different form, being graduated accorddeemed tyrannical unless self-imposed. "The ing to the dignity of the payer. The duke of most ignominious imposition was the poll tax, Lancaster was to pay ten marks, earls £4, barons: which none but slaves paid to their tyrant, or and baronets £2, and so on down to the lowest to his deputy the satrap, or subjugated nations to ranks, in which every person above the age of their conqueror, as, for example, the inhabitants sixteen was to pay one groat. The chief result of of the provinces to victorious Rome. As the this impost was the preparation of the poll tax field,' says Tertullian, 'is of less value when it is rolls of 1379, "one of the most important records 'subject to a tax, so are the persons of men more of the state of the population of England that was despised when they pay a poll tax; for this is an ever drawn up." As a financial measure it proved indication of captivity.' He whose person was miserably inadequate, producing in 1379 not more not free had assuredly to pay a tax upon his head, than £22,000, and was in the following year made that it might not be taken from him." (Boeckh's more severe. This led to the peasant revolt of "Public Economy of the Athenians.") There is 1881. Never a popular tax, the feeling against it some doubt as to whether the capitation or poll became stronger each year. 66 'One of the attractaxes levied at Rome were really such, or rather tions of the new mode of taxation seems to have property taxes. An account of them as levied been that the clergy, who adopted it for themunder the empire is to be found in Gibbon. A selves, paid, in this way, a larger share of the law of Valens and Valentinian recites that up to burdens of the state; but the chief ground for its that time each man had himself paid a certain adoption lay, no doubt, in its bringing within the capitation tax, but henceforth two and even three net of the tax gatherer a class which had hitherto might unite to pay this tax; an arrangement that escaped him, men such as the free laborer, the probably resulted from the imposition of other village smith, the village tiler." (Green.) The taxes. - Although the Romans collected this tax constant pressure of taxation, which by the poll from the tribes subjugated by them, in France it tax was felt in its most irritating form in every was after a time abolished. During the reign of household, goaded into revolt the oppressed peasJohn the estates voted a capitation tax, to be levied ants. 'Nothing," says Stubbs, in his “ Constituupon all, without exception, from the members of tional History of England," had helped so much the royal family to the peasant. It was not, how-to maintain the national feeling against the papacy ever, until 1695 that the poll tax assumed a definite form, and it then became a graduated tax, twenty-two classes of payers being recognized, with taxes ranging from 2,000 livres to twenty sous, the basis of classification being the estate and rank of the person assessed. (See Taine L'ancien Régime, book v., chap. ii., for the injustice of such a scale.) During the revolution all internal taxes on consumption were abolished, and among new imposts established, was that of three days' labor upon the roads. This could be commuted into a payment of money, the value of the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

as the payment of Peter's pence, the penny from each hearth due for the Romescot. So the poll tax interpreted to the individual, far more intelligibly than any political propaganda, the misdoings of the rulers. The appointment of the chancellor and the treasurer, the misdoings of the court, the mismanagement of the war, became home questions to every one who had his groat to pay." Graduated poll taxes were imposed during the reigns of Henry VIII., Charles I. and II., and lastly in that of William III., when they were abolished. The federal government has the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

power to impose poll taxes, but only in proportion | each hundred dollars of the assessed value of the to the enumeration or census. (Constitution, art. land taxed shall be imposed upon polls, and the I., § 9.) This power has never been exercised. constitution of Virginia contained a somewhat The states have, however, assessed them until similar provision. There were many exemptions recent times, but very few do now. The capita- from poll taxes mentioned in the laws, among tion tax was doubtless among the first charges im- which were persons attached to the army or navy, posed, as the condition of the colonies would tend or who had been wounded while in the military to show. In the early days of a community there service of the country; paupers and the insane, is almost nothing besides visible and tangible the deaf and dumb, the blind and infirm; minisproperty that can be taxed. And as men were ters of the Gospel (Tennessee); persons of color more nearly equal in rank and condition, and re- (Wisconsin), and uncivilized American Indians garded as being equally protected by the law in (Nevada). In some states the payment of a poll the enjoyment of life and property, the poll tax tax was made a necessary qualification of the naturally suggested itself as the simplest and most voter, as it is in Massachusetts to-day (1883). equitable form of taxation. As an example may On the other hand, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and be mentioned the occurrences of the poll tax in Michigan levied no poll taxes; the constitutions of Maryland, as described by a writer in the circular Ohio and Maryland declared them to be grievous of the Johns Hopkins university. In 1641 a capand oppressive, and Rhode Island provided by itation tax was granted by the assembly, in testi- law that "no poll tax could be laid for any purmony of its gratitude toward Lord Baltimore for pose," although the constitution allowed the colhis efforts to promote the welfare of the colony. lection of a registry tax, which was in reality a In the act of 1692, establishing the Protestant re- capitation tax. To take from each payer an ligion in Maryland, every taxable person was equal sum, which is the simplest form of a poll made to pay forty pounds of tobacco yearly for tax, does not necessarily make each man pay an the building of churches and the support of parish equal tax. On the contrary, such a duty is very ministers. To hinder the growth of papacy, an unequal in its incidence, as the condition of the act was passed in 1704 taxing all Irish servants payers must vary within wide limits. It would who came into the colony. The same year a tax obviously be unequal to levy this tax upon every was imposed on all imported negroes. In 1717 member of the family, parents and children, the proceeds of this latter tax were appropriated because the number of children in a family is toward the public school fund, and for erecting no measure of comfort or of ability to pay taxes. one free school in each county. In 1728 every | Leroy-Beaulieu believes that only males should taxable person was made to present the local pay a poll tax, and that it should be joined to authorities with three crows' heads or squirrels' political rights. Every man, he says, who posscalps. Poll taxes were at various times levied sesses and exercises the right of suffrage, ought to for special objects, such as the building of alms- pay a direct tax, the rate to depend upon the houses and the construction of highways. The needs of the local administrations and the existlast poll tax in Maryland was levied in 1774, ing indirect taxes. Among some of the United for the purpose of constructing a new road. In States, in which the payment of a poll tax is necfact, from 1641 down to the last year of the essary to an exercise of the elective franchise, the proprietary government (1774), a poll tax was col- door has been opened to abuse and frauds, as it lected in this state. - In 1860, according to a is customary for the party managers to indirectly report made to the New York state legislature, buy the votes of the delinquent tax payers by twenty-seven states and territories employed the settling for them their poll tax dues. - The inpoll tax. Some of the special features are worthy equality of the capitation tax has frequently been of notice. Thus, while Alabama taxed both male noticed, and in attempting to make it more equal and female free negroes, Mississippi, North Caro- the tendency is to change it into a tax upon inlina and Virginia taxed slaves. In California, come; if not based directly upon the income of Mongolians not engaged in production paid a each payer or class of payers, it may at least bear monthly special poll tax of $2.50, known as the a certain relation to it. Where the existence of Chinese police tax, and in the same state a special privileged classes permits such a graduation by federal war tax was laid on polls. In Nebraska rank, it has been resorted to, as in France and and Utah this impost could be commuted into so England. In Prussia a tax of this description is many days' labor on the roads, probably on ac- still levied, the classenstener. The population is count of a scarcity of ready money. Louisiana ap- divided somewhat arbitrarily into various classes, propriated the proceeds exclusively for the support according to their supposed income, and a tax of her free public schools. In Connecticut and proportioned to this classification imposed upon Delaware the polls were rated at a certain capital each group. Thus, the tax that is paid by each value, which varied from $300 in the former state member of one class or group is the same, and is (it was at one time only $10) to $2,700, which to that extent a poll or capitation tax; but as the was the highest limit in Delaware. In South tax payers are grouped according to their supposed Carolina the state constitution provided, that, or determined incomes, it partakes of the characwhenever a tax is laid upon land, a capitation tax ter of an income tax. The one or other feature of not less than one-fourth of the tax levied upon | predominates according as the number of groups

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY (IN U. S. HISTORY). The acquisition of territory from Mexico (see ANNEXATIONS, IV.-VI.) brought with it a most troublesome and dangerous question, the status of slavery therein. Was the new territory to be entirely free? was it to be entirely slave? was it to be equitably divided? or was congress to refrain from interfering in any way, and allow the problem to gradually eliminate its own difficulties? The first proposition, the basis of the free-soil and republican parties successively, is elsewhere treated (see WILMOT PROVISO); the third had comparatively few advocates, for the time had passed when even a Missouri compromise line could settle the difficulty; the second and fourth represent the two opposing influences which, after twelve years of widening, finally split the democratic party in 1860. The second proposition above referred to is primarily untraceable, but its rounded and ultimate completion is certainly due to Calhoun. The argument for it took two directions, which may be briefly stated as follows: 1. The power given to congress by the constitution (article IV., section 3), to " dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory" of the United States, referred only to the territory then held by the United States, in which slavery had already been prohibited. (See ORDINANCE OF 1787.) This meaning was so clear at the time that a separate section was necessary to empower congress to govern the territory thereafter to be acquired for a national capital. Plainly, then, in the cases of Louisiana, Florida, and the Mexican annexations, congress was to govern them, not by virtue of this territorial section of the constitution, but by virtue of the sovereign power by which it had acquired them. But congress was itself the creature of the constitution, and could exercise in the territories no powers prohibited to it by the constitution: it could not erect a state church there; or take away freedom of speech, or trial by jury; or allow any one to be deprived of property without due process of law. If, therefore, it found slave property in any of the territories, it was constitutionally bound to legislate for the protection of this species of property, as well as of others. This was the branch of argument intended for the country in general. Historically it is very strong, as may be better seen in Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case. Logically it is almost as strong, its radically weak point being in the definition of "property." How could congress be said to find slave property" in the territories? State law or custom might create a

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

property in man, but this could cover only the jurisdiction of the state: the state law or custom of Georgia could no more justify property in slaves in a territory than in the sister state of New York. Slave property could not be justified by territorial law, for the territories were under the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States; nor by that consensus of recognition by all men which justifies the holding of other animate objects as property. It could hold up absolutely no other shield than state law. Was congress to protect every man in the territories in the enjoyment of whatever he might see fit to claim as his property air, sunlight, black men, or even other white men? But the whole argument is no stronger than its weakest part, and must stand or fall with that. 2. As the constitution was a compact between separate and sovereign states, congress, as the joint agent and representative of the states, had no right to so legislate against slave property in the territories as to prevent citizens of slave states from emigrating thither, since that would be a discrimination against such states, and would deprive them of their full and equal right in the territories. This branch is elsewhere considered. (See NATION, III.; STATE SOVEREIGNTY.) In this case it was addressed more directly to the slave states than to the country at large, and it furnishes the connecting link between the theory of state sovereignty and its practical enforcement by secession, when Calhoun's hypothetical casus belli had occurred. In this point of view, Calhoun's resolutions of Feb. 19, 1847, whose language has been used in the statement above, were the ultimatum on which the southern states originally declared war, in 1860. The first enunciation of the fourth proposition is generally found in the Nicholson letter of Cass, Dec. 24, 1847. In this Cass asserts that the principle of the Wilmot proviso "should be kept out of the national legislature, and left to the people of the confederacy in their respective local governments"; and that, as to the territories themselves, the people inhabiting them should be left "to regulate their internal concerns in their own way." This idea was the essence of "popular sovereignty." Its advocates generally accepted the territorial section of the constitution, above refered to, as applicable, not only to the territory possessed by the United States in 1788, but prospectively to any which might be acquired thereafter. They therefore held that congress might make any "rules and regulations" it might deem proper for the territories, including the Mexican acquisitions; but that, in making these rules and regulations, it was wiser and better for congress to allow the “inchoate state" to shape its own destiny at its own will. Properly, it will be seen, there was nothing in the dogma which could constitutionally prohibit congress from making rules for or against slavery in the territories, if it should so determine, though gradually Douglas and some of its more enthusiastic advocates grew into the belief that popular sovereignty was the constitutional right

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

of the people of the territories, which congress could not abridge. Still, it should have been plain that, if a democratic congress might make a "regulation" empowering the people of the territories to control slavery therein, a congress of opposite views might with equal justice make a 'regulation" of its own, abolishing slavery therein. This point, however, never became plain to the south until the new republican party secured control of the house of representatives in 1855-7. After that time the whole south came to repudiate popular sovereignty and the territorial section of the constitution, and rested on the Calhoun doctrine that congress and the immigrant both entered the territory with all the limitations of the constitution upon them, including its provisions for the protection of slave property as well as property of other kinds. - At its first declaration, however, the idea proved to be a very taking one, south and north, for it promised to relieve the states from any responsibility for or consideration of the question of slavery in the territories. This was to be decided by the territorial legislature, as representing the people, and by the popular convention, upon the final formation of a state constitution. The democratic platform of 1848 did not directly refer to or indorse it, but its highly colored reference to the French revolution of that year, and to "the recent development of this grand political truth of the sovereignty of the people and their capacity and power for self-government," was at least suggestive of the Cass doctrine of popular sovereignty in the territories. The suggestion was made still plainer by the convention's action in rejecting, by a vote of 216 to 36, a resolution offered by Yancey, of Alabama, recognizing "the doctrine of non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of the people of this confederacy, be it in the states or territories, by any other than the parties interested in them [i. e., in such rights]"; the democratic convention was not willing, therefore, to sustain the right of any slaveholder to transfer his slave property into a territory against the will of its people. The sudden growth of population in California in 1848-50 gave Calhoun an opportunity of fastening a nickname upon the doctrine which he opposed. No territorial government had been formed in California when it applied for admission as a state. Its inhabitants, said Calhoun, were therefore trespassers on the public domain, mere squatters, who surely had no right on any theory to regulate their own government. His ridicule only made the terms "squatter sovereignty" and "popular sovereignty" interchangeable, though the former properly applied to an unorganized, and the latter to an organized, territory. -The original discoverer of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the territories did not perfect his claim by occupation, and Douglas almost immediately became its strongest and most persistent champion, so that his name is most entirely identified with it. Henceforward the Douglas doctrine became the shibboleth of most of the northern democrats, as a medium

[ocr errors]

between the Wilmot proviso and the demand of many of the southern democrats for active congressional protection of slavery in the territories. It is significant, however, of the timorous and evasive statesmanship of 1850, that it is exceedingly difficult to say whether popular sovereignty was a feature in the compromise of that year. (See COMPROMISES, V.) Southern democrats asserted that it was not, and their claim is supported by the provisions that the legislatures of Utah and New Mexico (the only territories organized by the compromise) should have power over "all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the constitution of the United States," and that its laws should be submitted to congress, and, if disɔpproved, should be null and of no effect. Douglas asserted that popular sovereignty was the basis of the bill, and the course of proceedings on it in the senate seems to confirm his assertion. He reported the bill in the senate, March 25, the powers of the legislature being as above stated. The committee of thirteen reported the same bill, May 8, adding the proviso "with the exception of African slavery.' Amendments were offered by Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, to empower the territorial legislature to protect, but not to attack, slavery, and by Chase, of Ohio, of exactly the opposite purport. Both were rejected; a motion of Douglas, through another senator, to strike out the committee's exception of slavery from the powers of the legislature, was carried by a vote of 33 to 19; and the bill passed as originally framed by Douglas. Even with this explanation, the best that can be said of the whole arrangement is, that it was a provoking verbal juggle, meaning anything but what it appeared to mean on its face, and best calculated for citation as a precedent in two opposite senses, for an increasingly bitter wrangle over its meaning, and for the final disruption of the party which had passed it. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, V.)-In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska bill (see that title) again purported to enforce the popular sovereignty idea in the new territories, although slavery had been prohibited in both of them by the Missouri compromise of 1820. The fourteenth and thirty-second sections of the act put the laws of the United States in force in the two territories, "except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States." It will be noticed that the language is simple and direct until the point is reached where "popular sovereignty" was to be

« ZurückWeiter »