|
John
Adams, Defense of the
Constitutions of Government of the United States
1787 Works 6:6--8, 114, 116--17
Marchamont Nedham lays it down as a fundamental principle and an
undeniable rule, "That the people, (that is, such as shall be
successively chosen to represent the people,) are the best keepers of
their own liberties, and that for many reasons. First, because they
never think of usurping over other men's rights, but mind which way to
preserve their own."
Our first attention should be turned to the proposition
itself,--"The people are the best keepers of their own
liberties."
But who are the people?
"Such as shall be successively chosen to represent them."
Here is a confusion both of words and ideas, which, though it may pass
with the generality of readers in a fugitive pamphlet, or with a
majority of auditors in a popular harangue, ought, for that very reason,
to be as carefully avoided in politics as it is in philosophy or
mathematics. If by the people is meant the whole body of a great nation,
it should never be forgotten, that they can never act, consult, or
reason together, because they cannot march five hundred miles, nor spare
the time, nor find a space to meet; and, therefore, the proposition,
that they are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true. They
are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all. They can neither
act, judge, think or will, as a body politic or corporation. If by the
people is meant all the inhabitants of a single city, they are not in a
general assembly, at all times, the best keepers of their own liberties,
nor perhaps at any time, unless you separate from them the executive and
judicial power, and temper their authority in legislation with the
maturer counsels of the one and the few. If it is meant by the people,
as our author explains himself, a representative assembly, "such as
shall be successively chosen to represent the people," still they
are not the best keepers of the people's liberties or their own, if you
give them all the power, legislative, executive, and judicial. They
would invade the liberties of the people, at least the majority of them
would invade the liberties of the minority, sooner and oftener than an
absolute monarchy, such as that of France, Spain, or Russia, or than a
well-checked aristocracy, like Venice, Bern, or Holland.
An excellent writer has said, somewhat incautiously, that "a people
will never oppress themselves, or invade their own rights." This
compliment, if applied to human nature, or to mankind, or to any nation
or people in being or in memory, is more than has been merited. If it
should be admitted that a people will not unanimously agree to oppress
themselves, it is as much as is ever, and more than is always, true. All
kinds of experience show, that great numbers of individuals do oppress
great numbers of other individuals; that parties often, if not always,
oppress other parties, and majorities almost universally minorities. All
that this observation can mean then, consistently with any color of
fact, is, that the people will never unanimously agree to oppress
themselves. But if one party agrees to oppress another, or the majority
the minority, the people still oppress themselves, for one part of them
oppress another.
"The people never think of usurping over other men's rights."
What can this mean? Does it mean that the people never unanimously think
of usurping over other men's rights? This would be trifling; for there
would, by the supposition, be no other men's rights to usurp. But if the
people never, jointly nor severally, think of usurping the rights of
others, what occasion can there be for any government at all? Are there
no robberies, burglaries, murders, adulteries, thefts, nor cheats? Is
not every crime a usurpation over other men's rights? Is not a great
part, I will not say the greatest part, of men detected every day in
some disposition or other, stronger or weaker, more or less, to usurp
over other men's rights? There are some few, indeed, whose whole lives
and conversations show that, in every thought, word, and action, they
conscientiously respect the rights of others. There is a larger body
still, who, in the general tenor of their thoughts and actions, discover
similar principles and feelings, yet frequently err. If we should extend
our candor so far as to own, that the majority of men are generally
under the dominion of benevolence and good intentions, yet, it must be
confessed, that a vast majority frequently transgress; and, what is more
directly to the point, not only a majority, but almost all, confine
their benevolence to their families, relations, personal friends,
parish, village, city, county, province, and that very few, indeed,
extend it impartially to the whole community. Now, grant but this truth,
and the question is decided. If a majority are capable of preferring
their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and
party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made
in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the
common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all
private and partial considerations.
The proposition of our author, then, should be reversed, and it should
have been said, that they mind so much their own, that they never think
enough of others.
.....
We concur also most sincerely in our author's conclusion, in part,
namely,----That since kings and all standing powers are so inclinable to
act according to their own wills and interests, in making, expounding,
and executing of laws, to the prejudice of the people's liberty and
security, no laws whatsoever should be made but by the people's consent,
as the only means to prevent arbitrariness." But we must carry the
conclusion farther, namely,--that since all men are so inclinable to act
according to their own wills and interests, in making, expounding, and
executing laws, to the prejudice of the people's liberty and security,
the sovereign authority, the legislative, executive, and judicial power,
can never be safely lodged in one assembly, though chosen annually by
the people; because the majority and their leaders, the principes populi,
will as certainly oppress the minority, and make, expound, and execute
laws for their own wealth, power, grandeur, and glory, to the prejudice
of the liberty and security of the minority, as hereditary kings or
standing senates.
The conclusion, therefore, that "the people, in a succession of
their supreme single assemblies, are the best keepers of their
liberties," must be wholly reprobated.
.....
It is indeed a "most excellent maxim, that the original and
fountain of all just power and government is in the people;" and if
ever this maxim was fully demonstrated and exemplified among men, it was
in the late American Revolution, where thirteen governments were taken
down from the foundation, and new ones elected wholly by the people, as
an architect would pull down an old building and erect a new one. There
will be no dispute, then, with Cicero, when he says, "A mind well
instructed by the light of nature, will pay obedience," willingly
"to none but such as command, direct, or govern for its good or
benefit;" nor will our author's inferences from these passages from
that oracle of human wisdom be denied:
"1. That by the light of nature people are taught to be their own
carvers and contrivers in the framing of that government under which
they mean to live.
"2. That none are to preside in government, or sit at the helm, but
such as shall be judged fit, and chosen by the people.
"3. That the people are the only proper judges of the convenience
or inconvenience of a government when it is erected, and of the behavior
of governors after they are chosen."
But then it is insisted, that rational and regular means shall be used
that the whole people may be their own carvers, that they may judge and
choose who shall preside, and that they may determine on the convenience
or inconvenience of government, and the behavior of governors. But then
it is insisted, that the town of Berwick upon Tweed shall not carve,
judge, choose, and determine for the whole kingdom of Great Britain, nor
the county of Berkshire for the Massachusetts; much less that a lawless
tyrannical rabble shall do all this for the state, or even for the
county of Berkshire.
It may be, and is admitted, that a free government is most natural, and
only suitable to the reason of mankind; but it by no means follows
"that the other forms, as of a standing power in the hands of a
particular person, as a king; or of a set number of great ones, as in a
senate," much less that a mixture of the three simple forms
"are beside the dictates of nature, and mere artificial devices of
great men, squared out only to serve the ends and interests of avarice,
pride, and ambition of a few, to a vassalizing of the community."
If the original and fountain of all power and government is in the
people, as undoubtedly it is, the people have as clear a right to erect
a simple monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, or an equal mixture, or
any other mixture of all three, if they judge it for their liberty,
happiness, and prosperity, as they have to erect a democracy; and
infinitely greater and better men than Marchamont Nedham, and the wisest
nations that ever lived, have preferred such mixtures, and even with
such standing powers as ingredients in their compositions. But even
those nations who choose to reserve in their own hands the periodical
choice of the first magistrate, senate, and assembly, at certain stated
periods, have as clear a right to appoint a first magistrate for life as
for years, and for perpetuity in his descendants as for life.
When I say for perpetuity or for life, it is always meant to imply, that
the same people have at all times a right to interpose, and to depose
for maladministration--to appoint anew. No appointment of a king or
senate, or any standing power, can be, in the nature of things, for a
longer period than quam diu se bene gesserit, the whole nation being
judge. An appointment for life or perpetuity can be no more than an
appointment until further order; but further order can only be given by
the nation.
The Works of John Adams. Edited by Charles Francis Adams. 10 vols.
Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1850--56. See also: Butterfield; Cappon;
Warren-Adams Letters
|
