The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-11-11
The Union.

sNo Constitution" said john RANDOLPH, sever
accomplished the object of its founders" The
results of our present system of Government,
when compared with the intentions of those
who formed it, afford striking conformation of
RANDoLPHs remark. And we are now able to
perceive the fallaey Of many of the reasons ORR
ginaliy advanced in its favor. In the tenth
number of the Federalist, written by Mr. MADI-
SON, we find the following
No man is allowed to be Judge in his own
cause; because his interest would certainly bias
his Judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his
integrity With equal, nay, with greater reason,
body of men are unfit to be both Judges and
parties, at the same time; yet, what are many of
the most important acts of legislation, but so
many judicial determinations, not indeed concern
ing the rights of single persons, but concerning
the rights of large bodies of citizens! and what
are the different classes of legislators, but adj
vocates and parties to the causes which they de-
tcrmine! Is law proposed concerning private
debts! 1t is question to which the creditors
are parties on one side, and the debtors on the
other Justice ought to hold the balance be-
tween them Yet the parties are, and must be,
themselves the Judges and the most numerous
party, or, in other words, the most powerful fac
tic manufactures be encouraged, and in what
degree, by restrictions OH foreign manufactures (?
are questions which would be differently decid-
ed by the landed and the manufacturing classes ;
and probably by neither with sole regard to
Justice and the public good. The apportion-
ment of .Xes, on the various descriptions of
property, is an act which seems to require the
most exact impartality yet there is, perhaps,
no Legislative act in which greater opportunity
and temptation are given to predominant party,
to trarnpIe on the rules Of justice. Every shil-
ling with which they oyer,b burden the inferior
number, is shilling saved to their own pockets
It is in vain to say, that enlightened states
men will be able to adjnst these clashing inter
ests, and render them all subservient to- the pub
lie good Enlightened statesmen will not al
ways be at the helms nor, in many cases, can
such an adjustment be made at all, without TAX
ing Into view indirect and remote considerations,
which will rarely prevail over the immediate in
terest which one party may find in dsregarding
the rights CT another, or the good OF the whole.
The Inference to which we are brought, Isl
that causes of faction cannot be removed and
that relief is only to be sought in the means of
controlling its effects. .."s
If n faction consists of less than majority,
relief is suppd by the republican principle which
enables the majority to defeat its sinister views
by regular vote 1t may clog the administration
il may conyulse the society; but it will be un-
able TO execute and mask its violence under the
forms of the Constitution. When majority
is included in faction, the form OF popular Gov
vernment, on the other hand, enables it to sacri-
flee to its ruling passion or interest, both the
public good and the rights of other citizens. To
secure the public good and private rights, against
the danger of such faction, and at the same
time to preserve the spirit and the form of popu
lar Government, is then the great object to which
our Inquiries are directed. Let me add, that it
is the great desideratum, by which alone this
form of Government can be rescued from the
opprobrium under which it has so long abored,
and be recommended to the esteem and adoption
Of mankind. ... q.
q Bv what means is this objects attainable?
Evidently bv one of two only Either the exs-
tence of the same passion or interest in majority
at the same time must be prevented; or the
majority having such co-existent passion or in
terest must be rendered, by their number and
local situation, unable to concert and carry into
effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse
and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we
well know that neither moral not religious mo-
tives can be relied on as an adequate control
They are not found to be such On the injustice
and violence Of individuals, and lose their eff.
cacy in proportion to the numher combined
together; that is, in proportion as their eiicary
becomes needful. .....lr ...,s se .sa.t...a..t ..
The closing sentence of this passage contains
a great truth; that moral and religious motives
lose their force as the number of men is aug,
mented, acting in collective capacity. This
truth is signally exemplifed in the history of
the Union. As its number has increased, its
political morality has diminished, until now we
see public measures adopted which at an earlier
day would neither have been attempted nor
tolerated ....... ..,.... o..
But it is surprising Mr.. MADISON did not see
that the principle he thus laid down was entirely
hostile, if not fatal to his policy of establishing
a Union of the States. For the moment q Gov
eminent of the Union was formed, the majority
to control it being so much more numerous than
the majority Of State, would be 50 much the
more INSCRIPTIONS. And hence the injustice
and dishonesty of States, which it was the OBJ
iect of the new Constitution to correct and pre-
vent, could only become exaggerated and ma
tionalizcd by the enlarged dominion and authority
conferred on the irresponsible monster Of a
majority thereby created. The evil was not
Immediately so obvious, because the men who
acted in the early period of the Union had been
trained in the more limited communities of
single States and in their more rigorous moral
ity. But that generation has passed away, and
the present one, no longer recognizes even in
the Constitution itself, an obligation superior to
the instinct and will of a majority
Il is instructive also to consider some of the
other original arguments in favor Of the Union,
and see the light which has been thrown upon
them by subsequent events Mr.. HAMILTON, in
the second number Of the Federdlist, commences
his support of the new Constitution by insisting
on the necessity of Union as a defence against
foreign rations. lie observes that the Indian
wars which had previously occurred, had in all
cases arisen from disputes between a single