Were this passion not discovered in the first rude state of man, no conclusive argument could be drawn from that circumstance. All the passions of man are, originally, capacities only, and capacities may and do often exist antecedent to the objects to which they are adapted. They can be discovered in exercise only; and they cannot be exhibited in exercise, until a proper object be presented. Many, if not all, of them are like plants in the germ; they discover not their species, until expanded by cultivation. Shall we say, the oak is not a tree of nature, because in its first state it is but a germ in the acorn? Or shall we say, the appetite in man, which leads to the propagation of the species, and its consequent passions, are not natural, because not discovered in the infant of a day? If we rely upon facts, history has not recorded, nor modern researches discovered, a single people in this supposed state of nature, a state in which a love of country, an attachment to the community, does not make a conspicuous figure. The ancient Barbarians of the north of Europe, from whom most of the modern inhabitants of that country are descended, furnish with proofs of the existence of this passion among them, of vigorous national attachments. It is true, their attachment to any portion of the soil was not so strong. This attachment to the soil is fixed by the cultivation of the earth for subsistence, which collects the interest and attention to one spot and gives a locality to conveniences. It is not, however, generally true, that savages have but a feeble attachment to the soil of their country. In this respect, they are, in a great measure, capable of the same habits, passions, and sentiments as the man of civilization. They occupy, with their habitations, but a small part of what they call their country. The rest is reserved for pasture or hunting grounds; it is the great farm of the tribe. They readily remove their temporary habitations from one part of this to another; but war, famine, or some very powerful cause is necessary to compel them to a total abandonment. The ancient Scythians, from whom the modern Tartars are descended, were nations of herdsmen. Their riches consisted principally in their horses, which supplied them both with food and carriage. Their habitations were In a country of great - booths or tents of easy construction. extent, they preferred those places, in which the greatest plenty of fresh pasture were found; for the sake of these, they made frequent and distant removals. We learn that among this people, as early as the reign of Darius the son of Hystaspes, the love of country was a vigorous passion. Their national attachments were strong, and they were attached to the soil, not so much because if afforded them subsistence by cultivation, as because it contained the tombs of their fathers. According to Herodotus, Indasarthus, a prince or head warrior in that country, sent the following message to Darius then attempting the conquest of Scythia-" If I flee before thee, Prince of the Persians, it is not because I fear thee. What I do now, I am used to do in times of peace. We Scythians have neither houses nor lands to defend. If thou hast a mind to force us to come to an engagement, attack the tombs of our fathers, and then thou shalt know what manner of men we are." Such a people could be no strangers to patriotism. The savages of America are a living instance, of the strength of this passion, among a rude and uncultivated people. The European writers have been very much abused in their information of the American natives. Buffon has asserted, "that among them, paternal love and filial affection are very faint; the most intimate connexion, that of family, has but feeble ties; there is no intercourse between one family and another; of course there is no national union, no republic, no social state." The Abbé Raynal has copied many things from Buffon, and probably here he found that state of nature, of which he speaks in the passage recited above. In the same account of the native inhabitants of Brazil, the Abbé gives an account of their ancient mode of life, in that country. What but a local attachment, an attachment to the soil, could have been the cause of this people continuing in the same country through a succession of ages? To what but a national attachment shall we attribute their national manners, and national resentment, of which he tells us? In another place, he furnishes an instance, which contradicts almost every part of the character given of the American natives by Buffon, and ought to have corrected his own opinion, that in what he calls a state of nature, the love of country is unknown. He tells us, the French proposed to a native tribe in Canada to remove a distance from their ancient habitation; on which occasion, me of their chiefs made the following speech. "We were orn, said he, on this ground-our fathers lie buried in it,hall we say to the bones of our fathers, arise and go with us to a foreign land?" Is this the language of a people, who re almost void of parental and filial affection,-who have no ational attachments, no republic, no social state? Logan a Mingo chief, in his speech sent to the governor of Virginia, at the close of an Indian war, in the year 1774, Hiscovers the same sentiments of patriotism. The reader will not be displeased to see the whole speech. It is more than equal to olumes, collected in the closet, on the character of that people. "I appeal, says he, to any white man to say, if ever he came to Logan's camp hungry, and he gave him not meat, if he ever came cold and naked, and he clothed him not.-During the last long and bloody war, Logan remained idle in his cabin, an advocate for peace. Such was my love of the whites, that my countrymen pointed as they went and said, Logan is the friend of white men*. I had even thought to have lived with you, but for the injuries of one man. Colonel Cresap, last spring, in cold blood and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children; there runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature.This called on me for revenge-I have fought—I have killed many. I have fully glutted my vengeance. For my country, I rejoice at the beams of peace. But do not harbor a thought that mine is the joy of fear. Logan never felt fear. He would not turn on his heel to save his life. Who is there to mourn for Logan? Not one." Where shall we find the love of country and family attachment more emphatically, more beautifully expressed? The people of these United States, who have known the aboriginal inhabitants of North America, both in peace and in war, and have often treated with them in their national councils, know full well the strength of their national attachments. Indeed the farther we go back toward that state so fondly and partially * Jefferson's notes on Virginia.-67. deemed by some the only true state of nature, the more vigorous we find that passion which attaches them to their little communities. What then is the result? Why clearly, that the Author of existence, to fit man for society and civil government, has implanted the principles of this passion in his nature. CHAPTER III. Of a disposition in man to abuse the powers of government with which he is intrusted. The question whether man' be originally depraved; whether a disposition to evil, a relish for vice as such, be a part of his nature in the present state, I leave to be discussed by the moralist and the divine. I am here to consider his natural powers, his disposition and actions, as they relate solely to his political state. Moralists have embraced different systems respecting the origin of moral evil, and the natural disposition of man, as affected to virtue and vice. Political writers have uniformly agreed. From Machiavel to Dr. Price, all have asserted or admitted, that, in a political character, when intrusted with power, man is totally depraved, wicked, and corrupt; that in power, the utmost perverseness is inherent in his very nature; that he is never good, but through necessity. Hence mutual checks, restraints, and opposition of powers are found necessary to guard against the oppression of rulers. This, if true, refutes the opinion which I have attempted to establish; that man, by the original constitution of his nature, is fitted for civil government; or, as I have elsewhere expressed it, Deity has implanted in him the germ of every necessary qualification for that state. Little, however, is man fitted for civil government, if no one can be found fit to be intrusted with the execution of its powers. Before we admit an opinion which so much vilifies the nature of man, and must, if fully believed, almost tempt one to call in question the goodness of the Author of that nature, let us candidly consider the reasons on which the opinion is founded. It is said, and truly, that every page of history furnishes us with instances of the abuse of power. The long line of Roman Emperors, with very few exceptions were scourges of the earth. All the kings and princes of ancient and modern times, not excepting the philosophic Frederick of Prussia,* have given full and convincing proofs of the danger of intrusting the powers of government to be exercised without control. An effect so universal, it is said, must have a universal cause in the nature of man. All this is true; and yet I will venture, at the hazard of being thought to be singular, to dissent from the common opinion, respecting the real cause. I apprehend the effect so general is not produced by any malignity, any culpable disposition in the nature of man; but that it is mostly the effect of situation. I do not doubt of the universality of the effect, or if you please, of the event, of a constant abuse of power in certain situations. I doubt of the cause only. I think the cause to be very different from that which has been usually assigned; that it is more complex, and is the effect of other causes, some existing in the nature of man, others arising from the nature of the power, and from the mode in which it has been intrusted or assumed. It may perhaps be urged, that if experience has evinced a general propensity in rulers, to abuse the powers which they possess, it is of little consequence to the science of government, what may be the particular cause of that propensity. The same checks, the same opposition of powers, will be necessary to guard against the abuse. But let it be remembered, that in applying a remedy to any evil, little success can be expected, if the cause of the evil be unknown or mistaken. It is much more eligible, where there is a possibility, to remove or prevent the cause, than to be obliged to maintain a constant struggle *Note. |
