CONCISE HISTORY. CHAPTER I. CIVIL government is an institution designed for the mutual safety and protection of mankind, and for the promotion of that mutual happiness, for which an all-wise and benevolent Creator appears to have intended his creatures. That all men are by nature free and equal, is an axiom in phylosophy which no one will controvert, and which all liberal and enlightened statesmen freely admit without question. It is a maxim which constitutes the basis of all democratic republics, and which is fully recognised as the great fundamental principle of the government of these United States. Because all men are by nature free and equal, and because a free government is designed for mutual protection, safety, and happiness, such a government must be a mutual compact or covenant among equals; and hence the republican maxim, that all the rightful powers of government are derived from the people, and are to be exercised for their good. But government is also an affair of necessity. With the complete natural freedom with which man. comes into the world, with a consciousness of perfect equality among the entire human family, and with the infirmities to which all are subject, neither safety nor happiness could long exist without an organization in some form, and a controlling sovereign power lodged somewhere, to reduce the body to obedience to such rules as might appear best calculated to advance the great object of human existence. If the God of nature has made all men free and equal, so has he implanted a rule of action in the human breast, by which all men are bound to respect the rights and to promote the happiness of each other. But, as men seem inclined to overstep that rule to gratify their selfish propensities, and thereby step aside from the rule of right, the necessity becomes obvious, to associate together in bodies politic, in which, by mutual agreement, the power shall be placed in the bands of a few, to make and enforce laws for the government of the many. That government, and that power, however, are not created for the benefit alone of those to whom they are entrusted. Their object is the public good — or, as Burlamaqui happily expresses it, "for the good of the whole in general, and of every individual in particular." No one will doubt the necessity of government. It is not a mere matter of choice of the few or the many. It is a matter of right and necessity due to each and every individual; because it is the right of every one to be protected against the violence of every other one, and to pursue measures, without impediment, to promote his own happiness, provided he do not inflict injury on others. This necessity creates in the majority, the right to impose laws on the minority; and it confers on that majority, the authority to enforce those laws; Provided always, that the minority shall enjoy safety and protection with the majority, and suffer no curtailment of privileges, but what the welfare of the whole may demand. If this view be correct, it will at once be seen, that, when a majority of members of the body politic become dissatisfied with the form and principles of their government, and convinced that it does not tend to the object for which governments are or should be erected, they have the undoubted right to effect a change. This principle is theoretically recoguised in the American Constitutions, as a necessary attribute of the popular sovereignty. But there is a principle paramount even to this; and which must, in all cases, be allowed to take precedence of it. The social tie, the basis of all government, must never be dissolved nor impaired, except in compliance with absolute necessity; because, by such an act, anarchy is created, and the public weal endangered. All revolu- tions dissolve the existing restraints or impair them, and weaken the respect for government, and laws; and no man can bear and discharge the awful responsibility, for the terrible evils that may intervene between the demolition of one government, and the erection of another, by revolutionary movements. As the first formation of government is a matter of absolute necessity, so should a revolution be; and so it must be in order to its justification. No act of violence to effect a change against the wishes of even a small minority, can ever be justified, as long as a hope remains of effecting that change in a legal and peaceable manner, and after a long and patient forbearance under oppression. Such were the views and feelings of our revolutionary sires, as set forth by them in the Declaration of Independence. They plead their long and patient suffering, and the absolute refusal of the mother country to listen to their humble petitions, memorials, and remonstrances. And it was after all these had failed, and after the mother country had prepared to demand and enforce her oppressive laws at the point of the bayonet, and at the cannon's mouth, that the cord was severed which bound her American colonies to allegiance. Thus was the necessity for revolution made apparent. A necessity not originating in the fact that the American colonies were oppressed, but in the absolute refusal of the mother country to remove the hand of oppression, the actual employment of force, and even the shedding of blood, to enforce her arbitrary and oppressive laws, and the consequent conclusion, that, resistance must be opposed to tyranny, or the fetters of slavery worn by the American people. On this ground alone, was the American Revolution justifiable. But, at the time the Declaration of American Independence was put forth, and when the patriotic colonists were treading the battle-field in hostile array, had there been a body of commissioners appointed by the British government, actually in session to consider our grievances, to consult the wishes of the people, and. to devise modes of redress, who would have considered the measures of the colonists any thing better than rebellion and treason? The necessity for revolution would not and could not have existed, till it should have been known that redress was finally and fully refused. Then, and not till then, could violent measures be justified. It was otherwise and for that reason only, our revolutionary fathers became patriots and heroes, who else would have been. rebels and traitors. Burke says, "It is the first and supreme necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen, but chooses a necessity paramount to deliberation; that admits no discussion; and demands no evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy." CHAPTER II. I have offered the foregoing preliminary remarks, because there are many people at home and abroad, who appear to consider the late attempt at revolution in Rhode Island, to be analagous, if not parallel, to that which proved so eminently successful in the days that "tried men's souls;" and by which, the American colonies became free and Independent States. A candid and impartial statement of facts in the follow ing pages, will enable the reader to compare the two cases, and to judge for himself how far they resemble each other. And, in order to refresh the memory, it |
