Flint's Letters from America, 1818-1820

by active 19th century James Flint

The duties and powers of the general government are concisely defined by the constitution, and may be expressed summarily, as embracing the subjects of commerce, finance, negociation, and war. All other objects are reserved, as falling under the jurisdiction of the separate state assemblies. These include local legislation, administration of justice between persons in the same states, and the supervision of agriculture.

Although it appears, that much care has been bestowed in drawing the line that separates the prerogatives of the general government, from those {183} of its individual members, still duties or powers derived from implication, are occasionally assumed by both departments. We have two recent examples in view. In 1819, the legislatures of several states imposed a heavy tax on the branches of the United States Bank, situated in the respective states. The United States Bank, it must be noticed, is chartered by Congress, and is the organ through which the national government transacts its pecuniary affairs. The bank refused payment, and obtained a judgment in its favour by the supreme or federal court.[114] Again, the admission of the territory of Missouri as a State in the Union, has lately been discussed in Congress. One of the principal points of the debate was the question, Whether the pre-existing States have a right to dictate to States about to be admitted into the Union, any restriction against slave-keeping? And it is understood that scruples on this question of right have induced several members to vote against the restriction, whose sentiments are opposed to slavery.

The distribution of business, of which a brief outline has just been given, is admirably adapted to an extensive sphere of action. The national councils are thus devoted to national concerns, and not to such petty affairs as framing public acts for demolishing the fences of private property to make room for highways, nor in borough politics, nor in deciding in the disputes of private individuals. Local affairs are regulated by local authorities, who are best able to judge of them; and this prevents any ground of complaint to arise against the national government on account of these. The State legislatures are, besides, filled annually by a free vote of the people, who have frequent opportunities of allaying their own discontents by a change of men, and a change of measures.

Those who predict an early dissolution of the {184} American Union, and who affirm that the country is naturally divided into two nations by the Allegany ridge, might with equal propriety say, that the Thames and the Severn are destined to water the territories of two distinct governments. And the remark that, in the event of the navigation of the Mississippi being interrupted by an enemy, the western country would be subjugated, is another position that may be applied to other rivers, and to other countries. It is not to be forgotten that, previously to the cession of Louisiana in 1801, the Spanish government claimed the exclusive benefit of that river, and that the privilege of navigation was the principal object that induced the government of the United States to purchase the territory, in 1803. Louisiana being acquired at the general expense, and not by the inhabitants of the western country alone, makes it evident that the transaction was viewed as an important national affair. Perhaps it was with the intention of producing a dismemberment, that the ministry of England made the attack on New Orleans. The defence was conducted in a national form, and not exclusively by the people of the western country; and the British government was not gratified by any overture of the inhabitants for becoming tributary. The supposed conspiracy of Aaron Burr, for detaching the transmontane country from the Eastern States, was not found to amount to levying war against the Union.[115] The evidence that could be obtained from his small party of associates and others, was not sufficient to convict him. The demagogue is not looked on as a personage dangerous to public tranquillity;—a decisive proof that the American people are confident in the strength of the ties by which they are knit together. The western settlements have the strongest incitements to remain in close conjunction, with their eastern neighbours. {185} A separation from them in times of war would cut off all communication by land with the eastern coast; an inconvenience that would greatly aggravate any attempt to blockade the mouth of the Mississippi. A separation would retard the ingress of population; it would injure internal trade; it would occasion an additional expense in supporting a separate government, and it would deprive them of the protection of the United States’ Navy. It will scarcely be alleged, that the Eastern States have an interest in dissolving the compact with the Western; as by that step they would not only forego a rapid accumulation of strength, but would incur the danger of converting fellow citizens into the most powerful enemies. They would lose that important branch of revenue, which arises from the sale of public lands, and they would no longer participate in the fur trade.

To infer the instability of the American republic from the frequency of revolutions in Europe, is altogether preposterous. A different state of society, and the difference of the political institutions to be compared, remove that parity of condition essential to analogical deduction. The executive power in America, does not extend to declaring war at pleasure; nor to dissolving the legislature. The president, whose term of service is only four years, has not the means nor the motives for family aggrandizement which prevail under hereditary succession. The members of the House of Representatives have their seats from the universal suffrage of the people; and the senators get their dignity and seats from the representatives in State Assemblies, who are themselves popularly elected, and who cannot promote obnoxious men without incurring public odium and future exclusion. The representation is equally distributed. Placemen and pensioners {186} are effectually debarred from being members of either house; under these conditions the few have it not in their power to dictate to the many. Ambitious projects, such as disfigure the histories of other countries, are precluded. Accessions of territory are not obtained by conquest, but by purchase. The object sought in these treaties is the right of soil; and not the power of taxing or enslaving men. No yoke is imposed but that upon the labouring steer. The domestic policy of the United States exhibits twenty-four republics, each having its own constitution, without any other restriction than conformity to that of the nation. In regard of foreign relations and general interests, all the States are cemented into one nation. If one or more States are invaded, the citizens have a right to the protection of the Union; and in the case of controversies or disputes between States, the judicial power provided under the general constitution is the umpire between them. Had the individual members of the United States placed a hereditary sovereign at the head of each, and put the reins of government in the hands of a few, we might have heard, before this time, of American courtiers making treaties to last forever; and violating them so soon as the strong found it convenient to attack the weak; of wars furnishing pretexts for raising vast sums to support the views of a party or a faction, perhaps for depriving the people of their liberties, and subjugating their neighbours; and of winding up the whole with holy leagues, admitting of no subsequent arbitrator but the sword.

The organization, of which a brief outline has just been given, is, in theory, well adapted to insure internal tranquillity, and protection against invasion. In practice, it has hitherto been conducive {187} to both these objects; and to a degree of national prosperity, that is unparalleled in the present age. The people govern for themselves, and are too sensible of the value of their rights to allow them to pass into other hands. Power is delegated only for a short period; and the representatives are closely watched by their constituents. Should a congress propose to disfranchise a part of the people; or to engraft a borough system on the present equal representation; or to establish septennial elections; every member voting for the obnoxious motion might expect to be marked out and expelled for ever. A case somewhat in point occurred in 1817.[116] Congress then passed a law for increasing the very moderate compensation for the services of members. The act was conceived to be unconstitutional: an alarm was sounded all over the country; the supporters of increased compensation were left out in the election of 1818; and the offensive law was repealed in the ensuing session. A veneration for the constitution is probably the most universal characteristic of American citizens: but they act, as if their united exertions were necessary to keep it in force; and are sensible, that neglect on their part might soon render the important document a dead letter. Every timely check given to the progress of corruption, is removing the necessity of convulsion to a later date. The people having the means of correction in their own hands, the political institutions of this country are to be esteemed as less mutable than the systems that consist entirely of the unmixed ingredients of disease and death. It would be too sanguine to suppose that the American people shall preserve their liberties for ever; but it may be safe to affirm, that nothing decisive in the fate of this country {188} is to be augured from the histories of republics without representation, or of monarchies without popular control. Before Americans relinquish free government, they must be ignorant of their present knowledge; they must cease to teach their children to prize their privileges; and no longer inculcate esteem for the memory of their dauntless ancestors, who fought for the inheritance. Washington, Franklin, and an host of other patriots, must be forgotten. The avarice of foreign governments, and the sufferings of foreign people, must pass into oblivion, and cease to be monitors. In short, a dark age must arrive before the throne of despotism can be erected here.

FOOTNOTES:

[112] Those who would wish to have a collected view of the principles of this subject, may consult the Federalist, a collection of interesting essays on the new constitution, written in 1788, by Messrs. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.—Flint.

[113] Some pious observers of the occurrences of Providence, have remarked that the Spanish Armada, equipped for the invasion of Britain, was destroyed in the year 1588; that the Revolution in that country happened in 1688; and, in seeking for an event to mark the commencement of another century, it has been observed by the loyal in Britain, that his Majesty, George the Third, recovered from a most deplorable visitation in 1788. If there be any American descendants of Britain, who are pleased with a system of chronology that contemplates the great events of Providence as revolving in a centenarian orbit, they may also notice a corresponding occurrence in the consummation of their liberties in the otherwise memorable year 1788.—Flint.

[114] The power of a state to tax the United States Bank was settled in the celebrated case of McCulloch versus Maryland, handed down March 6, 1819 (4 Wheaton, 316). Ohio refused to be bound by this decision, and her case was decided in 1824 (9 Wheaton, 738).—Ed.