Part 88

“Other systems of Philosophy have ever found it necessary to conceal their weakness and inconsistency, under the veil of unintelligible terms and phrases, to which no two mortals, perhaps, ever affixed the same meaning. But the philosophy of Newton disdains to make use of such subterfuges; it is not reduced to the necessity of using them, because it pretends not to be of nature’s privy council, or to have access to her most inscrutable mysteries; but, to attend carefully to her works, to discover the immediate causes of visible effects, to trace those causes to others more general and simple, advancing by slow and sure steps towards the Great First Cause of all things.” Ritt. Orat.

-----

What was the general bias of Dr. Rittenhouse’s opinions on the subject of government, no one who knew him could doubt; and they are likewise deducible, not only from his writings, but from the uniform course of his public and official conduct. He was, in fact, from the dawn of the American controversy with the government of the mother-country to the year 1775, a whig, in his political principles. From the commencement of hostilities in that year, his feelings, as a native of America, prejudiced him strongly against the administration of the British government; and the prejudices thus imbibed, were transferred, soon after, from those men who administered that government—as well as their measures, to the nature and form of the government itself. And finally, on the establishment of the national independence of the United States, in 1776, his opinions settled down, very decidedly, in favour of the governmental system of a representative and elective republic.

But, until the arrival of that important epocha, when thirteen North-American colonies of Great Britain solemnly announced to the world their separation from the parent-state, Rittenhouse thought and acted, in relation to political affairs, pretty much as his countrymen did. “Previous to the American revolution,” as Ramsay the historian has remarked, “the inhabitants of the British colonies were universally loyal:” and another American writer of respectability has correspondently observed, that the proceedings of the first congress were “cool, deliberate and loyal, though marked with unanimity and firmness.” Indeed many months elapsed, after the appeal to arms was actually made, before the strong attachment to the mother-country, which the American colonists had always manifested, generally subsided. But, after the middle of the year 1775, “the prejudices in favour of a connexion with England and of the English constitution,” (to use the words of Chief-Justice Marshall, “gradually, but rapidly wore off; and were succeeded by republican principles, and wishes for independence.”

-----

Footnote 362:

Dr. Morse, the Geographer.

Footnote 363:

See his Life of George Washington.

-----

Such then, it is confidently believed, was the progress of political sentiments in their operation upon the mind of Rittenhouse, in common with a large majority of the American people.

The information must therefore have been wholly erroneous, upon which Dr. Rush was induced to ground his assertion, that “the year of the declaration of Independence, which changed our royal governments into republics, produced no change in his (Rittenhouse’s) political opinions,—for,” continues the Doctor, “he had been educated a republican by his father.” The very reason which the able and zealous Eulogist has here assigned for Dr. Rittenhouse’s political principles having undergone no change in consequence of the American revolution, being predicated upon an assumed but mistaken fact, it serves to invalidate that allegation; and it would never have been made, had not Dr. Rush been led into the error by misinformation on the subject. Because, those who were personally acquainted with our Philosopher’s father, (Mr. Matthias Rittenhouse,) must well know, that the old gentleman was remarkable for his quiet, unoffending principles and conduct; that he meddled very little, if at all, with public affairs; and that, although a man of good judgment, he had never turned his attention to political controversies or speculations on the science of government. He was in truth a pious man, of great industry, plain manners and unambitious temper; and he uniformly approved himself a peaceable and faithful subject of that monarchy under which he lived seventy-three years, until 1776. On the other hand, the theory of government was a subject upon which the son had, doubtless, thought and read much. It cannot, therefore, be reasonably concluded, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “educated a republican by his father.”

It is asked: “How could he (Rittenhouse) behold the beauty and harmony of the universe as the result of universal and mutual dependance, and not admit that Heaven intended Rulers to be dependant upon those, for whose benefit, alone, all government should exist? To suppose the contrary,” it is added, “would be to deny unity and system in the plans of the great Creator of all things.” But, with all due deference to the genius and talents of the highly respectable gentleman here quoted, the writer cannot persuade himself, that our Astronomer could have drawn such inferences as the results of analogical reasoning, from the beauty and harmony of the Universe, as those which the foregoing extract would seem to impute to him. For, who are those, “for whose benefit, alone, all government should exist?” The People: And in such a republic as the United States—where there cannot exist, constitutionally, “a privileged order of men”—the Rulers are, surely, a part of the People. What, then, is the nature of this mutuality of dependence between Rulers and People? If government should exist for the benefit of the People, that is, all the members of the community, as most assuredly it ought to do; then it should be conducted for the benefit of the Rulers, as well as of those who are ruled; the former being a component part of the entire community, under the comprehensive denomination of the People. It is therefore conceived, that, on republican principles, the People and their Rulers cannot be so contradistinguished as separate bodies of men, as that the former, alone, should be dependant on the latter; but that there ought to be between them, as constituting jointly and collectively the People, that “mutual dependance,” of which the ingenious Eulogist speaks: otherwise, a privileged order of men must be considered as actually existing among us. Yet, even in the monarchical republic of Great Britain, the business of government is not wholly “limited” to “a privileged order of men:” One branch of the legislative body is popular; and one branch, also, of the judicial department of that government, the institution of juries, is purely republican.

-----

Footnote 364:

See the Eulogium on Rittenhouse.

Footnote 365:

The names ordinarily used to distinguish things, do not always truly denote the nature of the things they are designed to signify: and it is very evident, that any misapplication of a name, to which a specific meaning has been appropriated, cannot alter or otherwise affect the essence or inherent quality of the thing itself to which it is wrongly applied.

A nation may be a republic, notwithstanding its chief executive magistrate be denominated a king. A kingly government may be essentially republican, provided the people be governed by known laws, and their king be limited in his prerogative, by the constitution of the state; not such a monarch as is vested with uncontrouled power. In this sense, the British government may, as some modern writers have shewn, be called a commonwealth, or republic: and under a similar impression, Sir Thomas Smith, even in the reign of so rigid a prince as Henry VIII. wrote his book De Republicâ Anglicanâ. The republic of Poland was long governed by elective kings; and Shakespeare, (nay, even the leveller Godwin,) appears to have considered Monarch, King and President, as synonymous terms.

Footnote 365a:

The Memorialist can truly say, with the author of the Pursuits of Literature:—“I have given some attention to Mr. Godwin’s work on Political Justice, as conceiving it to be the code of improved modern ethics, morality, and legislation. I confess I looked not for the Republic of Plato, or even for the Oceana of Harrington; but for something different from them all. I looked, indeed, for a superstructure raised on the revolutionary ground of Equality, watered with the Guillotine; and such I found it.” See Pursuits of Literature, Dial. the third, note p. of the seventh Lond. edit.

Footnote 366:

“It belongs to monarchies,” says Dr. Rush, “to limit the business of government to a privileged order of men.” See Eulog.

-----

The learned professor, here referred to, is nevertheless an highly estimable citizen of the American Republic, as his numerous and important public services fully evince. In his “Address to the People of the United States,” published shortly before the sitting of the Federal Convention, he has pointed out two “errors or prejudices on the subject of government in America, which,” as he very justly observes, “lead to the most dangerous consequences.” The correctness of his sentiments on the subject of those errors, does him honour: such of his observations as are more particularly applicable to the present subject, are contained in the following passages.

“It is often said, that ‘the sovereign power and all other power is seated in the people.’ This idea is unhappily expressed. It should be—‘all power is derived from the people.’ They possess it only on the days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their Rulers; nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of importance to circulate this idea, as it tends to order and good government.” And again:

“The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the word Sovereignty: hence, each State pretends to be sovereign. In Europe, it is applied only to those states, which possess the power of making war and peace, of forming treaties, and the like. As this power belongs only to Congress, they are the only sovereign power in the United States.”

The Memorialist is persuaded, that Dr. Rittenhouse would have fully concurred in this construction of the nature of sovereignty, in an elective government: and he has been the more diffuse on this subject, in order both to prevent and remove, as much as possible, any misconceptions respecting the political opinions of our Philosopher.