[1]
We observed, in examining the Federal Constitution,
that the efforts of the legislators of the Union had been
diametrically opposed to the present tendency. The consequence
has been that the Federal Government is more independent in its
sphere than that of the States. But the Federal Government
scarcely ever interferes in any but external affairs; and the
governments of the State are in the governments of the States are
in reality the authorities which direct society in America.
[2]
The legislative acts promulgated by the State of
Massachusetts alone, from the year 1780 to the present time,
already fill three stout volumes; and it must not be forgotten
that the collection to which I allude was published in 1823, when
many old laws which had fallen into disuse were omitted. The
State of Massachusetts, which is not more populous than a
department of France, may be considered as the most stable, the
most consistent, and the most sagacious in its undertakings of
the whole Union.
[3]
No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly
wrong another people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser
nations within a greater one, and they are aliens to each other:
if, therefore, it be admitted that a nation can act tyrannically
towards another nation, it cannot be denied that a party may do
the same towards another party.
[4]
A striking instance of the excesses which may be
occasioned by the despotism of the majority occurred at Baltimore in the
year 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore. A
journal which had taken the other side of the question excited the
indignation of the inhabitants by its opposition. The populace
assembled, broke the printing-presses, and attacked the houses of the
newspaper editors. The militia was called out, but no one obeyed the
call; and the only means of saving the poor wretches who were threatened
by the frenzy of the mob was to throw them into prison as common
malefactors. But even this precaution was ineffectual; the mob
collected again during the night, the magistrates again made a vain
attempt to call out the militia, the prison was forced, one of the
newspaper editors was killed upon the spot, and the others were left for
dead; the guilty parties were acquitted by the jury when they were
brought to trial.
I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania,
"Be so good as to explain to me how it happens that in a State founded
by Quakers, and celebrated for its toleration, freed blacks are not
allowed to exercise civil rights. They pay the taxes; is it not fair
that they should have a vote?"
"You insult us," replied my
informant, "if you imagine that our legislators could have committed so
gross an act of injustice and intolerance."
"What! then the
blacks possess the right of voting in this county?"
"Without the
smallest doubt."
"How comes it, then, that at the polling-booth
this morning I did not perceive a single negro in the whole
meeting?"
"This is not the fault of the law: the negroes have an
undisputed right of voting, but they voluntarily abstain from making
their appearance."
"A very pretty piece of modesty on their
parts!" rejoined I.
"Why, the truth is, that they are not
disinclined to vote, but they are afraid of being maltreated; in this
country the law is sometimes unable to maintain its authority without
the support of the majority. But in this case the majority entertains
very strong prejudices against the blacks, and the magistrates are
unable to protect them in the exercise of their legal
privileges."
"What! then the majority claims the right not only
of making the laws, but of breaking the laws it has made?"
[5]
This power may be centred in an assembly, in which
case it will be strong without being stable; or it may be centred
in an individual, in which case it will be less strong, but more
stable.
[6]
I presume that it is scarcely necessary to remind
the reader here, as well as throughout the remainder of this
chapter, that I am speaking, not of the Federal Government, but
of the several governments of each State, which the majority
controls at its pleasure.
