the constitution which allows the superior power to reside in the whole body of the citizens, having never parted with it, to a prince, or vested it in the hands of a select body of the community, from which the rest are excluded"—and it is here, that he says that he prefers the term democracy to that of republic. If Lord Brougham, by supreme power, means, that all power is derived from the people, and is exercised for their benefit, and that by revolution or change of constitution it can be resumed, we should agree with hum; but, if he means that the whole body of the people can assemble, en masse, and make laws and execute those laws by officers of their own appointing, there is no truth in his proposition; nor can we assent to the opinion that the name of "democracy" is better suited to our governments than "republic." REPUBLIC is the constitutional name given by our ancestors. The United States, says the constitution, shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of government, (not a democracy) and shall protect it against invasion, &c. We, the people, in the preamble of the constitution of the United States, never was meant to include all persons then residing within the limits of the thirteen States. By people, it could only have meant to embrace such free persons, as by the laws of the States then enjoyed and exercised the rights and equality of citizenship. At that time the qualifications for voters in the different States were very varied. We believe few, very few, if any, allowed general suffrage even to the free whites. It did not embrace all persons, for the 9th sec. of the 1st art. was adopted, after full discussion, on compromise between the South and North, recognizing the right of property and commerce in a certain class of persons. That class, it will not be asserted by any but a mad-man, was ever intended to be embraced in the words, "we the people." On the contrary, we are told by the abolitionist, that the constitution is offensive to his nostrils, because it guaranties to protect any State against domestic violence, (which is not the fact) and, which they assert, meant protection against this very class of persons, which is treated by the constitution as property and the subject of commerce. To the people, the habeas corpus act, the trial by jury, the exemption from excessive bail, and the quartering of soldiers, and the right to keep and bear arms, was secured; but these privileges only applied to free people, and not to persons held to service or labor in

one State, who might escape into another; for these are ordered by the constitution to be delivered up, upon claim, and claim only, of the party to whom such service or labor is due. Here was no necessity for a habeas corpus. Things can only be due by right, and this right has been acknowledged by the unanimous consent of every State in the Union; nor until the constitution is subverted, can any State enter this Union, without acknowledging these rights. But, our object was to show that this is not pure democracy, but a republic, and a republic, which, like every other that ever has existed, did not regard all persons residing within its territory as a part of its people, or confer upon all, indiscriminately, the power to participate in the exercise of its political powers, as a class of its citizens. Lord Brougham says, "a government does not cease to be democratic because a part of the people is excluded from direct power, provided the disqualified class is not prevented from becoming a member of the qualified body." He proceeds to say (3 part. ch. 1.) that "the United States of America have undeniably all of them a democratic constitution, although in most of them there is an electoral qualification.” By some of the State constitutions, a class of persons, not included in the term people, is absolutely excluded, and cannot become qualified for admission into the governing class, while the constitution is respected. This Lord Brougham admits, constitutes a republic, and not a democracy. (3 part. Pol. Phil. ch. 1.)

The writer of this article remembers very well when the term democrat was considered invidious at the South. The anti-Federalist, States-rights men at the South, were called republicans, and they rejected the name of democrat, which had obtained at the North, and it was never until the election of 1840, that decent persons could willingly stomach the name. And, perhaps, had the old name been preserved, the South would not have been so liable to misplace its confidence, and it would have been more apparent, that this is not the only time when those who pretend to be of the same principles differed very widely North and South. Parties sometimes play the political cuckoo, and ensconce themselves under the names of their opponents.

The existence of slaves who are excluded from all participation in the government, on the other hand, is not inconsistent with the character of a republic. Indeed, slavery

has existed in most republics and democracies. Our government, to speak correctly, is a mixed democratic, representative republic. Its most marked characteristic, is that great invention of modern times-THE REPRESENTATIVE PRINCIPLE. All the powers of the government are exercised by those, who, in their various departments represent the people, or rather, such body of persons as constitute the people of such governments, whether it excludes some or not. The executive, legislative and judicial, are all in their turn mere representatives, exercising their authority in trust for the benefit of all who are entitled to the privileges of such society. In framing our Federal Government, the object was not to form a great central government, and to extend its jurisdiction over the whole internal and foreign relations of the consolidated territory, but to form a more perfect union among States, which were still to remain States, with most of their powers retained. If their amalgamation into one great nation had been intended, the States, according to the wishes of Alexander Hamilton, would have been abolished, and but one government left. But the Union was only intended to effect certain objects. The States and their governments were to be left, in all other respects, as independent as they were before. Only such powers as concerned their foreign relations, and the general defence were vested in the Union. All internal management remained to the individual States. Certain centripetal and centrifugal dangers were to be avoided. While the confederation was as imperfect as it had been, the danger was from our foreign relations. To constitute a great central government, and to vest in it all power, it was foreseen, would have been to sacrifice the rights of sections, and of great interests which then existed and divided the country, to the interested will of the majority. Checks then were provided against these centripetal and centrifugal dangers. Speaking of the United States, Lord Brougham further says: "After an uninterrupted display of political wisdom, as well as firmness and moderation, they finally threw off the yoke of the mother country; gloriously establishing their own independence, and winning for themselves a new constitution upon the Federal plan and of the Republican form." This, he

"In all questions relative to the extent of its powers, it is always Federal," said Mr. Madison, in his argument in favor of its adoption. No. 39 Federalist.

continues, is the most important event in the history of our species. "It proved, for the first time, in the history of the world, that a purely republican form of government can be founded and maintained in a country of vast extent, peopled by millions of inhabitants. The form of government thus framed and successfully established by the American people, under the guidance of some of the wisest and most virtuous statesmen ever called to administer national affairs, although republican and federal, was yet constructed on the princi ples of the British constitution as nearly as the different circumstances of the colonies would permit. The principal variations were the substitution of an elective chief-magistrate, personally responsible, for one hereditary, and only responsible through his ministers and agents; the upper house being elective like the lower, and the nation consist ing of a confederation of republican States, each independent in many essential particulars, but all combined, as regards foreign relations, under one head, and all governed by a central legislature, of powers limited by law as to its jurisdiction over each individual member of the Union, though quite absolute as to the general concerns of the whole con federacy and the federal relations of its component parts.

"We have now seen that this constitution professes to lay down certain fundamental laws, which are binding not merely on the subject [citizen] but upon the Congress itself, and upon the State legislatures. Hence arises this anomaly, that the supreme power is fettered; there is not, properly speaking, a supreme power; Congress is tied up; that is done by the American Constitution, which in ours is held impossible; the hands of the legislature are bound; a law has been made which is binding on all future parliaments. When we first contemplate this state of things, it appears to be sufficiently anomalous; and yet a little reflection will show us, that it is, to a certain extent, the necessary consequence of the proper or perfect Federal Union. There is not, as with us, a government only and its subjects [citizens] to be regarded; but a number of governments, of States having each a separate and substantive, and even independent existence, originally thirteen, now six and twenty, and each having a legislature of its own, with laws differing from those of the other States. It is plainly impossible to consider the constitution which professes to govern this whole Union, this federacy of States, as any other than a

treaty, of which the conditions are to be excuted for them all; and hence there must be certain things laid down, certain rights conferred, certain provisions made, which cannot be altered without universal consent, or a consent so general as to be deemed equivalent for all practical purposes, to the consent of the whole. It is not at all a refinement, as we have already remarked, that a federal union should be formed; this is the natural result of men's joint operations in a very rude state of society. But the regulation of such a union upon pre-established principles-the formation of a system of government and legislation in which the different subjects shall not be individuals but States-the application of legislative principles to such a body of States-and the devising means for keeping its integrity as a federacy, while the rights and powers of the individual States are maintained entire-is the very greatest refinement in social policy to which any state of circumstances has ever given rise, or to which any age has ever given birth." (Pol. Phil. 3 part, ch. 30.) He (Lord Brougham) considers this a proper federal union, and he says in another place, "in the proper federal union, the subjects of the central government are, not the inhabitants of the different States, but the different States themselves, the inhabitants of each being the subjects of its separate government." (1 part, ch. 15.)

Now it must be apparent, that to continue to ourselves the blessings of this happy constitution, it is necessary for us to preserve most faithfully its federal character, and while we honestly allow to the Federal Government all the powers legitimately intended to be granted, we should sacredly preserve those retained to the several States. In other words, we should most faithfully conform to the compact between the States. The execution of this contract has not been left to the people, but the whole is to be performed by representatives of their choosing, directly or indirectly; and this brings us to the important inquiry-what is the true representative principle, or the true character of the representative?

The representative principle is admitted by all writers to have been the great invention of modern times. In all ages, the use of delegates or deputies was known; but these were mere proxies, in the nature of ministers or ambassadors to a diet, authorized, as Lord Brougham expresses it, "to declare their particular will, and not to consult for the good of