Such liberty the Anglo-Saxon finds contributing to his happiness; but it may be the greatest curse, as it has often proved to those who have different blood in their veins, who have not the same capacity of self-control, and who enjoy, therefore, as much, if not more, under governments suited to their peculiar temperaments. An Italian Republic exists only in the dreams of Mazzini and Garibaldi, and yet if the sum of human happiness could be measured, there may be as much happiness in Italy, and perhaps more than is to be found in the two nations that are able to live under a constitutional government.
It often happens, that among those nations which require a strong government, we find a larger amount of social freedom, than among those who are politically more free. A man is more free to express an opinion in Paris, upon any matter of science or religion, or other topic, excepting politics, than he is in Boston. He stands less in awe of his neighbors, feels less the pressure of public opinion, than do we, on whom government bears lightly, but who are, to a corresponding extent, the slaves of Public Sentiment. Where laws bear lightest, Public Opinion takes their place, and becomes, often, a dreadful tyrant, as is seen frequently in our western States, and on the borders of civilization. On the other hand, where there exists the least political freedom, we find the largest social liberty, as though one was incompatible with the other, which is probably the case, and for the reason that man must be governed to a certain extent in some way, and if he becomes politically more free, he becomes by necessity, socially, more enslaved.
We shall find, if we look at the different nations of the world, that each enjoys that degree of liberty, either political or social, which most contributes to its happiness. If this were not the case with any nation, it is certain that its condition would be changed at once, to correspond to its wants and capacities. No government, however despotic, could for a moment prevent such a result; nor is it at all safe to judge of the real condition of a nation, by the excited harangues of such enthusiasts as Kossuth and Mazzini.
As fast as a people become capable of self-control or self-government, just so fast the government becomes modified to meet their wants; for they are in fact the government, and rulers are but their representatives.
This view of liberty will be considered, I am aware, by many as very heretical and not at all in accordance with the facts of history or the nature of man. To some it will, no doubt, appear new as well as strange, and very doubtful. That what we call constitutional liberty, however, depends mainly upon the peculiar physical and moral temperament of a people, I cannot doubt. Self-government is constitutional in more senses than one. Such at least is the result of my reflections upon the subject. The lesson I learn from history is, that no amount of physical or mental culture can materially change the peculiar temperament which belongs to each race. A nation may be educated to excel in all the arts and all the sciences, in oratory, philosophy, poetry, music, and painting, but not in the art of self-government, which implies a natural gift bestowed upon a very small portion of the human race. To judge of a people in this respect we must also witness their capacity at home, and not be deceived by what happens to individuals or small communities when thrown into the midst of a self-controlling or self-governing race. Such is the case with our German population which constitutes an intelligent, useful, law-abiding portion of our citizens, and to all appearance capable of exercising the functions of self-government. But we must consider that they exist here surrounded and entirely controlled by our own people, and in some parts of the Union have been born and brought up under our institutions. If we wish to know the capacity of their race for self-government, we must go to Germany, and if possible find it there. The German race comes nearest to our own and excels it in some respects, though wanting the necessary political elements with which we are gifted. For many years the profoundest scholars and the greatest musical composers have been found in Germany, which has also produced in Goethe and Schiller, names worthy to rank with the greatest of modern times. We come from the same stock and the same northern hive, but have pursued different courses, and have not now the same blood in our veins. One race takes naturally to politics, for which it has an aptitude and capacity, the other as naturally to music and painting, to science and philosophy. In the lapse of centuries, the physical constitution of both may change. The English may lose by admixture the peculiar qualities of blood which now distinguish them, and so lose their capacity of self-control. They may become degenerated, like the Romans, by the enervating influence of luxury, and like that nation lose their constitutional liberty. So on the other hand, Germany may, in the progress of time, undergo changes equally great and in precisely the opposite direction. A union of the different races of that vast kingdom may produce a new result. A new race may arise which shall excel the present race of Englishmen, in the capacity of self-government. The present English race is the work of centuries, and contains the blood of Saxons, Danes, and Normans, blended in due proportion for the production of a certain result, and such a result as can nowhere else be witnessed.
If the theory of human liberty, which I have thus so briefly and imperfectly suggested, is the true one, and is supported by the facts of history, then it will furnish us with a key to unlock some of those hard problems in human life and destiny which have so puzzled mankind, and which have resisted all attempts at solution.
If we regard all nations as moving on in the sphere designed by Providence, each seeking and finding its happiness in its own way,—some less capable of self-restraint than others, some enjoying a high degree of political liberty, and some, on the other hand, in possession of a high degree of social freedom; their happiness dependent not so much on the peculiar forms of their government as upon its adaptation to their peculiar wants and capacities,—we shall be relieved of much of that commiseration and misplaced sympathy which we have bestowed upon others, and which was, perhaps, more needed by ourselves. Viewed in the light I have suggested, and also in connection with the great facts, moral and physical, of which I am about to speak more particularly, the problem of negro slavery in the United States is not one so difficult of solution as has been generally supposed. The recent outbreak in Virginia brings home to us, with renewed and redoubled force, the question, What must become of the millions of slaves in our Southern States, could they be set free by some such movement as that of John Brown, urged on by those who have been for many years engaged in agitating the subject?
This is the important matter for our consideration, or rather it should have been the matter to have been considered many years ago. This is the problem which should have been solved by those who have been so long dealing in such extravagant language and "glittering generalities" about the natural rights of man. They should have informed us what is to become of those millions, suddenly let loose from restraint and thrown upon their own resources, no longer to be protected by the white race, but to be met by competition, by undying prejudice, extreme social hardship, and the "irrepressible conflict" of incompatible races.
Those of us who have attained to middle age have been taught by experience that no portion of those millions could exist for any length of time on the soil of Massachusetts. But for the occasional emigration from the South, a negro would now be a sight as rare in this State as that of a wild Indian, hardly a remnant being left of the families which we knew in our boyhood.
From statistics gathered by the late Dr. Jesse Chickering, it appears that the blacks die in Massachusetts in a ratio of three to one as compared with the whites. This state of things is the result of both moral and physical causes. The depressing influence of extreme social hardship, which no philanthropy can alleviate, accounts in a great measure for this unequal mortality; while physical causes operate, perhaps, still more to the same effect. Of the latter, we may learn something from a paper read a few years since before the Boston Society of Natural History, by Dr. Samuel Kneeland, Jr., from which the following is an extract:—