Imagens das páginas


not extend the leisure and opportunity to all ? ” We should, unquestionably, do so as far as possible; but we cannot extend them in a sufficient degree to all, because the material interests of society, the industrial labor necessary for the support and comforts of life, will not permit it to be done. The merchant demands the practical results of the profoundest legal knowledge ; require him to master the processes by which those results are obtained, and he must cease to be a merchant, and become a lawyer, for they demand the labor of one's whole life. The simplest communicant demands, for his spiritual nutriment, the results of the profoundest theological researches; but if he should go into these researches himself, who would cultivate his potato patch ? The possibility of combining in the same person, from his youth up, the necessary industrial labors for his material interests, with the highest intellectual and scientific culture, though once a favorite dream of ours, strikes us as more and more problematical, the older we grow. No man can serve two masters. Either he will neglect his studies or his living. If he is to be a successful student, he must be free from drudgery the hours he devotes to relaxation from study.

“ Nevertheless, you insist on an educated class.” Certainly. But not on a class to be educated. The education determines the class, not the class the education. And here, again, is seen the popular character of colleges and universities, and why in republican countries they should be especially encouraged. Neglect your colleges and universities, and turn your whole attention to common schools, and you build up an aristocracy at once; for nobody can be really so silly as to suppose our common schools, which can at best give only a little elementary instruction, can ever be made to meet all the demands of a finished education. The higher, more thorough, and more finished education will then be possible only to the children of the rich. Then it will be not the education that determines the class, but the class that determines the education. The true interest of republics is to found, and liberally endow, colleges and universities, so as to bring the highest education within the reach of individuals from the humblest classes. The rich can educate their children without these institutions, by private tutors, or by private seminaries. Demolish these institutions, and the evil would fall very lightly on the wealthy, but with a crushing weight on the gifted sons of the poor.

“But, once more ; you are for an educated class, which is to know more than the people at large.” And what then? Is it a serious evil to those who know little, that there are others who know more than they do? Is a great, a wise, a learned man, a curse to us? Are we the worse for our Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adamses, Hamiltons, Websters, Calhouns ? Out upon the slander! The people never think so. They are wiser and juster than they who profess to speak in their name. They crave the great man, and rejoice when they find one whom they may trust and reverence. So fond are they of the great man, the hero, that they will sometimes be carried away by his counterfeit. Let us have none of this feeling, that no one must be above us. It was the unwillingness to admit aught superior to himself, that converted Lucifer, the son of the morning, into the prince of hell.

“But you would deprive the common mind of its rights; you require the people to sustain a class to think for them, instead of thinking for themselves.” Nonsense, again. Just as if a man, not a downright fool, could seriously propose that the people should blindly surrender their own judgments to any body whatever! Do try to understand one a little better, and show, at least, that you have a judgment to surrender. In God's name, in humanity's name, let the people exercise all the mind they have, and their own judgments to their utmost capacity. All we ask of them is, that they seek to understand before they judge ; and all we complain of in them is, that they undertake to judge without first having qualified themselves to judge, that they judge before knowing enough to judge wisely. We would have them understand for


themselves, and what we want scholars for is, to assist them to understand for themselves. We certainly do demand teachableness in the people ; a modest selfdistrust, a willingness to suspend their judgments till they have become acquainted with the subject in question. We certainly do feel a little indignant when we meet a man, nominally educated or not, deciding, offhand, on matters of the most momentous concern, on which he has never seriously reflected one half hour in his life. We certainly have no very profound respect for the youngster hardly breeched, who undertakes to decide questions against him who has devoted a long life, rare abilities, and rarer opportunities, to their investigation, and we have an irresistible impulse to whip him back under the charge of his nurse. But we ask no surrender of the understanding. If the people will but exercise their understandings, so as to judge understandingly, we shall be satisfied. The evil is, they will not understand ; they will not take the pains to inform themselves, and yet they insist upon it, that you shall have the profoundest respect for their crude notions, and their ill-formed judgments, although the result of an ignorance so profound, that you see, at once, it cannot be refuted.

We ask, indeed, for an educated class, and we ask it not for the benefit of its members, but for the advancement of the general intelligence, as the indispensable condition of the progress of the people. We ask such a class in these times, as a feeble antagonist at least, to the all-triumphant money power. We would raise up MIND, high and thorough SCHOLARSHIP, against WEALTH. We demand it, too, as a barrier against the licentiousness of our times, the loose radicalism, the looser infidelity, and the still more destructive sectarianism, which are now threatening our country with ruin. The situation of our country is alarming. Dangers, numerous and threatening, hang over us, and we have no hope, but in the educated men, the SCHOLARS of the country. It is for them to come to the rescue. It is on their fidelity to their mission, and their boldness, energy, and devotion to truth and social progress, that the salvation of the country, under Providence, depends.

As to the charges of aristocracy, which sciolists and demagogues may bring against these views, we treat them with scorn. A man who has grown gray in the cause of the people, who is indebted to his advocacy of that cause for the place he holds, however unimportant it may be, in the hearts of his countrymen, is full as likely to remain true to it, as to desert it ; and full as likely to comprehend the bearing of what he advances on that cause, as are these sciolists and demagogues themselves, who praise the people that they may the more successfully plunder them. We care not for their barkings, come they from what quarter they may. We say to the Scholars, do your duty. Remember that you live not for yourselves, but for the people, and the more of you there are, and the wiser and profounder you are, so much the better.

Art. IV. - The Democratic Review. New-York:

J. & H. G. Langley. No. LXVI. Art. XV. December, 1843.

The Article we here refer to, in the Democratic Review, was called forth by some Essays, which we had previously contributed to that Journal, on the “Origin and Ground of Government.” It is written with considerable smartness, and contains one or two very clever hits; but is, in our judgment, somewhat too light and sketchy for the very great gravity and interest of the questions involved. Its tone and general style of argument are not quite compatible with the dignity of philosophical discussion, nor exactly what we had a right to expect from a professed personal and political friend. But, happily, the question at issue is not of a


personal nature, and there is no necessity of inquiring, whether we or the editor of the Democratic Review is the better man, the warmer friend of liberty, the more consistent republican, the more skilful dialectician, or the better able to turn aside the point of an argument by vehement declamation, a vulgar appeal, a biting sarcasm, or a witty retort. Matters of this kind, however decided, could not tend much to the public edification, nor to the general advancement of political sci

The real question at issue is one of grave and abiding interest; it concerns the truth or falsity of a great and influential political doctrine, and can be worthily discussed only when we bring to its discussion our purest affections, our honestest motives, and our best reason.

The question, to which we at present confine our remarks, concerns the truth or falsity of the democratic theory as expounded by the Democratic Review. We enter now into no defence of our own doctrine, for, as yet, the reviewer has offered nothing against it. The objections he has urged, we had ourselves suggested, and answered; and, till the answers we gave are invalidated, nothing more needs to be said. The reviewer has done nothing but to show, that our theory of government contradicts his; and his, therefore, is the theory to be examined. Is the reviewer's own doctrine worthy to be adopted ? This is the question.

Before proceeding to the direct consideration of this question, we must pray our readers to understand distinctly our position. We may be easily misinterpreted, and misrepresented ; and, by a little play on the ambiguity of terms, be made appear to oppose what we do not oppose, and to advocate what we do not advocate. We say distinctly, that in questioning, as we shall soon proceed to do, the truth and sufficiency of democracy, as expounded by the Democratic Review, we are not questioning the doctrine and measures of the republican party; we do not deny the right, or the capacity, of the people to administer the government VOL. I. NO. II.


« AnteriorContinuar »