Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 2 of 2)

by B. H. Roberts

"I must declare and avow, that in all my reading and study of history (and it has been my favorite study—I have read Thucydides, and have studied and admired the master states of the world), that for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity and wisdom of conclusion, under such a complication of circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the general congress of Philadelphia."

Whence obtained these men the wisdom that thus challenged the admiration of the first statesman of Great Britain, and of his age, a man of gigantic intellectual powers, of incorruptible integrity, and who devoted the great powers of his mind to the service of his country? Could the wilderness impart much knowledge of principles of government and statesmanship as was manifested in the councils of those American planters, manufacturers and trades people? What books were extant from which they could learn it? Was it the genius of the land they inhabited that taught them statecraft? Was it the spirit of freedom that brooded over the country, over lake and stream and forest that sought self-expression through them? Did the wild waves of the Atlantic, as they broke upon the shingle of New England's rugged coast, hymn civic wisdom into their souls? Let poets and romancers attribute it to what source they will, to me it was the inspiration of God which touched their spirits and gave them understanding.

And not only was that inspiration wisdom to the American councils, but it inspired courage in the presence of defeat and patience that taught their armies to wait for their victory. It gave hope and calm to the turbulent spirit of Washington, and faith and confidence to his companions in arms. It kept alive the fires and patriotism in the breast of the common soldier and quieted the fears of the loved ones left to watch over the homes during the absence of husbands and fathers and sons. It affected all the departments of the great struggle until "Yorktown's sun rose on a nation's banner spread, a nation's freedom won." And the nation of the United States began that career whose achievements are the admiration and marvel of the world.

III.
THE UNIQUE THINGS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

Let us now consider the second proposition; namely, that the inspiration of those who founded our constitution may be sustained by a consideration of the principles on which our government is founded. That there were republics and federated republics, too, before our own, goes without saying; that the justice of the principle of government by the people had been recognized by masters of the science of civil government is equally true; but never before in the history of the world has there been developed such a highly complex system of government, none in which there has been such a balancing and fair adjustment of powers, will be conceded by every student of history and of civil government. In the first place, the division of the sovereign power of government into three co-ordinate and independent departments, both in the states and in the nation—the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments—is more insisted upon than in any other government that has ever been established. Then, again, in the division of the sovereign power as between the states and the general government it is unique. On the one side the general government is more limited and on the other more extended than in any other republic ever founded. Limited in that the general government is confined to powers expressly conferred upon it by the constitution, while all other powers of government are reserved to the states or to the people, respectively. The side on which its powers are more extended than in any previous confederation is in this, that power is conferred upon the general government to execute its own laws, with its own machinery, and upon all citizens within any one and in all the states. The French philosopher, De Tocqueville, declares that the principle of our republic rested upon "a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as a great discovery in modern political science, and for which there is as yet no specific name." Enlarging upon the subject, he said:

"This constitution, which may at first be confounded with the federal constitutions which have preceded it, rests, in truth, upon a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as a great discovery in modern political science. In all the confederations which preceded the American constitution in 1789, the allied states for a common object agreed to obey the injunctions of a federal government; but they reserved to themselves the right of ordaining and embracing the execution of the laws of the Union. The American states which combined in 1789 agreed that the federal government should not only dictate, but should execute its own enactments. In both cases the right is the same, but the exercise of the right is different, and this difference produced the most momentous consequences. The new word, which ought to express this novel thing, does not yet exist. The human understanding more easily invents new things than new words, and we are hence constrained to employ many improper and inadequate expressions."

Our own national experience proves that it is the adoption of this principle in our system of government which supplies the element of strength that is usually supposed to be lacking in republican forms of government, and makes it possible for a republic to persist, to be strong, and at the same time conserve the freedom of the people.

The principle, however, which most concerns us here today in our deliberations is the great and fundamental principle of our system of government—"the law of laws," as De Tocqueville calls it, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people—"government of the people, by the people and for the people." This principle is, of course, the foundation not only of our republic but of all republics. It has, however, in our American system received increased emphasis; it has taken on new life; it has become a reality. There are not wanting writers on civil government who say this principle is active in all governments, and, indeed, to some extent, that is true; but for the most part, in modern times, until the establishment of our own government, this principle found expression only "in the purchased suffrages of a few of the satellites of power." At other times "in the votes of the timid or interested minority." Or else it was "discovered in the silence of the people and based on the supposition that the fact of submission establishes the right to govern." But in our system this principle is not barren or concealed; it is recognized by the customs of the people, as well as proclaimed by the laws. "It spreads freely and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences," as De Tocqueville urges, and it has direct application to the affairs of government. It is a principle that takes government out of the hands of a favored few, and recognizes civil power as resident in the people. It upsets the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule, and of priests to interfere, only as they may exercise their rights of citizenship in common with their fellow-citizens. That utterance of our Declaration of Independence, which says "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," may seem at first glance to be an unimportant statement, but tremendous consequences draw it, and it was truly revolutionary in its character, as matters stood in the political affairs of the British Empire at the time it was proclaimed. And when we say that we believe that the constitution of our country was established by a divine inspiration, working through the men who formulated it, we should remember that we stand committed to this doctrine of government by the people; and to such of us who hold to a divine inspiration in our constitution, that principle of our government is God-ordained.

Referring to this idea that the constitution of our country is an inspired instrument, I am tempted to believe sometimes that we fail to appreciate the seriousness of that doctrine. We are apt to speak of it too glibly, and as applying to a mass of things that we have never taken the time to analyze and consider in detail. But if we really mean what we say when holding to this view of the constitution being an inspired instrument, then let us remember that we believe that the constitution, not only as a whole, but in its parts, is inspired of God. That is, it was a divine wisdom that recognized the power of civil government as resident in the people. In other words, God ordains, for our country at least, that government shall be by the people; that the sovereign power of government which they ordain and establish shall be divided into its three co-ordinate and independent branches, executive, legislative and judicial; that there shall be a further division of the sovereign powers of government between the states and the general government; that the general government is authorized to exercise only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it by the constitution; that the rest of the sovereign powers of government are reserved to the states and to the people respectively. The theory that the constitution of our country is inspired commits us to the doctrine that there shall be freedom of the press, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and the freedom, equality and independence of the individual citizen—all these things together and severally are ordained of God; and he who infringes upon any one of these things ordained by our inspired constitution is untrue to that order of things that God has ordained for our government through an inspired constitution.

There is even more than all this to those of us who believe the constitution to be an inspired instrument; for the most of us who believe that believe also that the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient America; and in that book is recorded an historical incident which has a direct bearing upon the subject we are here considering. It refers to a new element in government by the people; one that we will do well to properly regard. And that is, the direct personal responsibility that the individual carries under a system of government where the people rule. The incident occurs in the alleged reign of Mosiah I at a period that corresponds with the latter half of the second century before Christ. The old king proposed to his people a revolution in the form of government by which monarchy should be abandoned and the republican form of government be established in its place. In urging this revolutionary measure the good king said: