orations-第5节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



happy　reward　of　their　labors。　　But　in　this　grateful　task；　your

former　orators；　on　this　anniversary；　have　anticipated　all　that　the

most　ardent　industry　could　collect；　and　gratified　all　that　the

most　inquisitive　curiosity　could　desire。　　To　you；　my　friends；

every　occurrence　of　that　momentous　period　is　already　familiar。　

A　transient　allusion　to　a　few　characteristic　instances；　which

mark　the　peculiar　history　of　the　Plymouth　settlers；　may

properly　supply　the　place　of　a　narrative；　which；　to　this

auditory；　must　be　superfluous。



One　of　these　remarkable　incidents　is　the　execution　of　that

instrument　of　government　by　which　they　formed　themselves

into　a　body　politic；　the　day　after　their　arrival　upon　the　coast；

and　previous　to　their　first　landing。　　That　is；　perhaps；　the　only

instance　in　human　history　of　that　positive；　original　social

compact；　which　speculative　philosophers　have　imagined　as　the

only　legitimate　source　of　government。　　Here　was　a　unanimous

and　personal　assent；　by　all　the　individuals　of　the　community；　to

the　association　by　which　they　became　a　nation。　　It　was　the

result　of　circumstances　and　discussions　which　had　occurred

during　their　passage　from　Europe；　and　is　a　full　demonstration

that　the　nature　of　civil　government；　abstracted　from　the

political　institutions　of　their　native　country；　had　been　an　object

of　their　serious　meditation。　　The　settlers　of　all　the　former

European　colonies　had　contented　themselves　with　the　powers

conferred　upon　them　by　their　respective　charters；　without

looking　beyond　the　seal　of　the　royal　parchment　for　the　measure

of　their　rights　and　the　rule　of　their　duties。　　The　founders　of

Plymouth　had　been　impelled　by　the　peculiarities　of　their

situation　to　examine　the　subject　with　deeper　and　more

comprehensive　research。　　After　twelve　years　of　banishment

from　the　land　of　their　first　allegiance；　during　which　they　had

been　under　an　adoptive　and　temporary　subjection　to　another

sovereign；　they　must　naturally　have　been　led　to　reflect　upon　the

relative　rights　and　duties　of　allegiance　and　subjection。　　They

had　resided　in　a　city；　the　seat　of　a　university；　where　the

polemical　and　political　controversies　of　the　time　were　pursued

with　uncommon　fervor。　　In　this　period　they　had　witnessed　the

deadly　struggle　between　the　two　parties；　into　which　the　people

of　the　United　Provinces；　after　their　separation　from　the　crown

of　Spain；　had　divided　themselves。　　The　contest　embraced

within　its　compass　not　only　theological　doctrines；　but　political

principles；　and　Maurice　and　Barnevelt　were　the　temporal

leaders　of　the　same　rival　factions；　of　which　Episcopius　and

Polyander　were　the　ecclesiastical　champions。



That　the　investigation　of　the　fundamental　principles　of

government　was　deeply　implicated　in　these　dissensions　is

evident　from　the　immortal　work　of　Grotius；　upon　the　rights　of

war　and　peace；　which　undoubtedly　originated　from　them。　

Grotius　himself　had　been　a　most　distinguished　actor　and

sufferer　in　those　important　scenes　of　internal　convulsion；　and

his　work　was　first　published　very　shortly　after　the　departure　of

our　forefathers　from　Leyden。　　It　is　well　known　that　in　the

course　of　the　contest　Mr。　Robinson　more　than　once　appeared；

with　credit　to　himself；　as　a　public　disputant　against　Episcopius；

and　from　the　manner　in　which　the　fact　is　related　by　Governor

Bradford；　it　is　apparent　that　the　whole　English　Church　at

Leyden　took　a　zealous　interest　in　the　religious　part　of　the

controversy。　　As　strangers　in　the　land；　it　is　presumable　that

they　wisely　and　honorably　avoided　entangling　themselves　in　the

political　contentions　involved　with　it。　　Yet　the　theoretic

principles；　as　they　were　drawn　into　discussion；　could　not　fail　to

arrest　their　attention；　and　must　have　assisted　them　to　form

accurate　ideas　concerning　the　origin　and　extent　of　authority

among　men；　independent　of　positive　institutions。　　The

importance　of　these　circumstances　will　not　be　duly　weighed

without　taking　into　consideration　the　state　of　opinion　then

prevalent　in　England。　　The　general　principles　of　government

were　there　little　understood　and　less　examined。　　The　whole

substance　of　human　authority　was　centred　in　the　simple

doctrine　of　royal　prerogative；　the　origin　of　which　was　always

traced　in　theory　to　divine　institution。　　Twenty　years　later；　the

subject　was　more　industriously　sifted；　and　for　half　a　century

became　one　of　the　principal　topics　of　controversy　between　the

ablest　and　most　enlightened　men　in　the　nation。　　The　instrument

of　voluntary　association　executed　on　board　the　〃Mayflower〃

testifies　that　the　parties　to　it　had　anticipated　the　improvement

of　their　nation。



Another　incident；　from　which　we　may　derive　occasion　for

important　reflections；　was　the　attempt　of　these　original　settlers

to　establish　among　them　that　community　of　goods　and　of　labor；

which　fanciful　politicians；　from　the　days　of　Plato　to　those　of

Rousseau；　have　recommended　as　the　fundamental　law　of　a

perfect　republic。　　This　theory　results；　it　must　be　acknowledged；

from　principles　of　reasoning　most　flattering　to　the　human

character。　　If　industry；　frugality；　and　disinterested　integrity

were　alike　the　virtues　of　all；　there　would；　apparently；　be　more

of　the　social　spirit；　in　making　all　property　a　common　stock；　and

giving　to　each　individual　a　proportional　title　to　the　wealth　of

the　whole。　　Such　is　the　basis　upon　which　Plato　forbids；　in　his

Republic；　the　division　of　property。　　Such　is　the　system　upon

which　Rousseau　pronounces　the　first　man　who　inclosed　a　field

with　a　fence；　and　said；　〃This　is　mine；〃　a　traitor　to　the　human

species。　　A　wiser　and　more　useful　philosophy；　however；　directs

us　to　consider　man　according　to　the　nature　in　which　he　was

formed；　subject　to　infirmities；　which　no　wisdom　can　remedy；　to

weaknesses；　which　no　institution　can　strengthen；　to　vices；

which　no　legislation　can　correct。　　Hence；　it　becomes　obvious

that　separate　property　is　the　natural　and　indisputable　right　of

separate　exertion；　that　community　of　goods　without

community　of　toil　is　oppressive　and　unjust；　that　it　counteracts

the　laws　of　nature；　which　prescribe　that　he　only　who　sows　the

seed　shall　reap　the　harvest；　that　it　discourages　all　energy；　by

destroying　its　rewards；　and　makes　the　most　virtuous　and　active

members　of　society　the　slaves　and　drudges　of　the　worst。　　Such

was　the　issue　of　this　experiment　among　our　forefathers；　and　the

same　event　demonstrated　the　error　of　the　system　in　the　elder

settlement　of　Virginia。　　Let　us　cherish　that　spirit　of　harmony

which　prompted　our　forefathers　to　make　the　attempt；　under

circumstances　more　favorable　to　its　success　than；　perhaps；　ever

occurred　upon　earth。　　Let　us　no　less　admire　the　candor　with

which　they　relinquished　it；　upon　discovering　its　irremediable

inefficacy。　　To　found　principles　of　government　upon　too

advantageous　an　estimate　of　the　human　character　is　an　error　of

inexperience；　the　source　of　which　is　so　amiable　that　it　is

impossible　to　censure　it　with　severity。　　We　have　seen　the　same

mistake　committed　in　our　own　age；　and　upon　a　larger　theatre。　

Happily　for　our　ancestors；　their　situation　allowed　them　to

repair　it　before　its　effects　had　proved　destructive。　　They　had　no

pride　of　vain　philosophy　to　support；　no　perfidious　rage　of

faction　to　glut；　by　persevering　in　their　mistakes　until　they

should　be　extinguished　in　torrents　of　blood。



As　the　attempt　to　establish　among　themselves　the　community

of　goods　was　a　seal　of　that　sacred　bond　which　knit　them　so

closely　together；　so　the　conduct　they　observed　toward　the

natives　of　the　country　displays　their　steadfast　adherence　to　the

rules　of　justice　and　their　faithful　attachment　to　those　of

benevolence　and　charity。



No　European　settlement　ever　formed　upon　this　continent　has

been　more　distinguished　for　undeviating　kindness　and　equity

toward　the　savages。　There　are；　indeed；　moralists　who　have

questioned　the　right　of　the　Europeans　to　intrude　upon　the

possessions　of　the　aboriginals　in　any　case；　and　under　any

limitations　whatsoever。　　But　have　they　maturely　considered　the

whole　subject？　　The　Indian　right　of　possession　itself　stands；

with　regard　to　the　greater　part　of　the　country；　upon　a

questionable　foundation。　　Their　cultivated　fields；　their

constructed　habitations；　a　space　of　ample　sufficiency　for　their

subsistence；　and　whatever　they　had　annexed　to　themselves　by

personal　labor；　was　undoubtedly；　by　the　laws　of　nature；　theirs。　

But　what　is　the　right　of　a　huntsman　to　the　forest　of　a　thousand

miles　over　which　he　has　accidentally　ranged　in　quest　of　prey？　

Shall　the　liberal　bounties　of　Providence　to　the　race　of　man　be

monopolized　by　one　of　ten　thousand　for　whom　they　were

created？　　Shall　the　exuberant　bosom　of　the　common　mother；

amply　adequate　to　the　nourishment　of　millions；　be　claimed

exclusively　by　a　few　hundreds　of　her　offspring？　　Shall　the　lordly

savage　not　only　disdain　the　virtues　and　enjoyments　of

civilization　himself；　but　shall　he　control　the　civil