[[1]]
Trans. from J. J. Rousseau, Le Contract social, Bibliothèque Nationale, 6th ed., Paris,
1871, p. 91.
[[2]]
For example, Raumer, writing from Paris in 1830, expressed the matter very well as
follows: “All these men [the liberals] regard as revolutionary the abolition of anciently
established institutions and evils, whereas by counterrevolution they understand the
restoration of these or of other abuses. Their adversaries, on the other hand, understand by
revolution the aggregate of all the follies and crimes that have ever been committed, whereas
by counterrevolution they mean the re-establishment of order, of authority, of religion, and
so on” (Friedrich von Raumer, Briefe aus Paris und Frankreich im Jahre 1830, F. A.
Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1831, Part II, p. 26).—Cf. also Wilhelm Roscher, Politik,
Geschichtliche Naturlehre der Monarchie, Aristokratie und Demokratie, Cotta, Stuttgart-Berlin, 1908, 3rd ed., p. 14.—Yet we have to remember that in political matters such
judgments of value may be effective means of struggle towards political and sometimes also
towards moral ends; but they are apt to lead us astray if we use them to aid us in defining
historical tendencies or conceptions.
[[3]]
Friedrich Curtius, Ueber Gerechtigkeit und Politlk, “Deutsche Rundschau,” xxiii, 1897,
fasc. 4, p. 46.
[[4]]
“It was this opposition [of the ultra-monarchical friends of Louis XVI to the well-disposed
liberals] which set itself against the idea of bourgeois and political freedom that was
spreading, not in France alone, but in all the other civilized countries of Europe, that forced
upon the Revolution (which otherwise might have been purely beneficial) its evil and
destructive character. It was this which led the representatives of the people to endeavour to
avoid the threatened ruin by calling the masses to their aid; it was this which led to the
unchaining of the rough and lawless force of the mob, and thus threw open the box of
Pandora” (Carl von Rotteck, Allgemeine Geschichte vom Anfang der historischen Kenntniss
bis auf unsere Zeiten, Herdersche Buchhandlung, Freiburg, 1826, vol. ix, p. 83).
[[5]]
Friedrich von Raumer, Briefe aus Paris, etc. op. cit., vol. i, p. 176.
[[6]]
Raumer, op. cit., vol. i, p. 264.
[[7]]
Roscher, op. cit., p. 321.
[[9]]
Martin Rade, in a leading article (Das Allgemeine Wahlrecht ein Königliches Recht,
“Hessische Landeszeitung,” xxiii, No. 25, 1907) favoring the election of the nationalsocialist
Helmuth von Gerlach at Marburg, wrote as follows in order to still the alarms of the
adversaries of universal suffrage: “The case would be very different if our Reichstag were
the actual director of the government, if it alone could decide the internal and external
destinies of our people! But it is merely one among the elements of our constitution! Beside
it, or rather above it, stands the Bundesrat (Federal Council), and not the most trifling
dominant class; whereupon once more they are in their turn attacked by fresh
opponents who appeal to the name of democracy. It is probable that this cruel game
will continue without end.
