the american republic-第9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！


oluntary　　association　of　individuals。　　Individuals　create　civil　society；　　and　may　uncreate　it　whenever　they　judge　it　advisable。　　Prior　to　　the　Southern　Rebellion；　nearly　every　American　asserted　with　　Lafayette；　〃the　sacred　right　of　insurrection〃　or　revolution；　and　　sympathized　with　insurrectionists；　rebels；　and　revolutionists；　　48　wherever　they　made　their　appearance。　　Loyalty　was　held　to　be　the　　correlative　of　royalty；　treason　was　regarded　as　a　virtue；　and　　traitors　were　honored；　feasted；　and　eulogized　as　patriots；　ardent　　lovers　of　liberty；　and　champions　of　the　people。　　The　fearful　　struggle　of　the　nation　against　a　rebellion　which　threatened　its　　very　existence　may　have　changed　this。

That　there　is；　or　ever　was；　a　state　of　nature　such　as　the　theory　　assumes；　may　be　questioned。　　Certainly　nothing　proves　that　it　is；　　or　ever　was；　a　real　state。　　That　there　is　a　law　of　nature　is　　undeniable。　　All　authorities　in　philosophy；　morals；　politics；　and　　jurisprudence　assert　it；　the　state　assumes　it　as　its　own　　immediate　basis；　and　the　codes　of　all　nations　are　founded　on　it；　　universal　jurisprudence；　the　jus　qentium　of　the　Romans；　embodies　　it；　and　the　courts　recognize　and　administer　it。　　It　is　the　reason　　and　conscience　of　civil　society；　and　every　state　acknowledges　its　　authority。　　But　the　law　of　nature　is　as　much　in　force　in　civil　　society　as　out　of　it。　　Civil　law　does　not　abrogate　or　supersede　　natural　law；　but　presupposes　it；　and　supports　itself　on　it　as　its　　own　ground　and　reason。　　As　the　natural　law；　which　is　only　natural　　justice　and　equity　dictated　by　the　reason　common　to　all　men；　　persists　in　the　civil　law；　municipal　or　49　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　international；　as　its　　informing　soul；　so　does　the　state　of　nature　persist　in　the　civil　　state；　natural　society　in　civil　society；　which　simply　develops；　　applies；　and　protects　it。　　Man　in　civil　society　is　not　out　of　　nature；　but　is　in　itis　in　his　most　natural　state；　for　society　　is　natural　to　him；　and　government　is　natural　to　society；　and　in　　some　form　inseparable　from　it。　　The　state　of　nature　under　the　　natural　law　is　not；　as　a　separate　state；　an　actual　state；　and　　never　was；　but　an　abstraction；　in　which　is　considered；　apart　from　　the　concrete　existence　called　society；　what　is　derived　　immediately　from　the　natural　law。　　But　as　abstractions　have　no　　existence；　out　of　the　mind　that　forms　them；　the　state　of　nature　　has　no　actual　existence　in　the　world　of　reality　as　a　separate　　state。

But　suppose　with　the　theory　the　state　of　nature　to　have　been　a　　real　and　separate　state；　in　which　men　at　first　lived；　there　is　　great　difficulty　in　understanding　how　they　ever　got　out　of　it。　　　Can　a　man　divest　himself　of　his　nature；　or　lift　himself　above　it？　　　Man　is　in　his　nature；　and　inseparable　from　it。　　If　his　primitive　　state　was　his　natural　state；　and　if　the　political　state　is　　supernatural；　preternatural；　or　subnatural；　how　passed　he　alone；　　by　his　own　unaided　powers；　from　the　former　to　the　latter？　　The　　ancients；　　50　　　　　　　　　　　who　had　lost　the　primitive　tradition　of　creation；　　asserted；　indeed；　the　primitive　man　as　springing　from　the　earth；　　and　leading　a　mere　animal　life；　living　in　eaves　or　hollow　trees；　　and　feeding　on　roots　and　nuts；　without　speech；　without　science；　　art；　law；　or　sense　of　right　and　wrong；　but　prior　to　the　　prevalence　of　the　Epicurean　philosophy；　they　never　pretended；　　that　man　could　come　out　of　that　state　alone　by　his　own　unaided　　efforts。　　They　ascribed　the　invention　of　language；　art；　and　　science；　the　institution　of　civil　society；　government；　and　laws；　　to　the　intervention　of　the　gods。　　It　remained　for　the　　Epicureanswho；　though　unable；　like　their　modern　successors；　　the　Positivists　or　Developmentists；　to　believe　in　a　first　cause；　　believed　in　effects　without　causes；　or　that　things　make　or　take　　care　of　themselvesto　assert　that　men　could；　by　their　own　　unassisted　efforts；　or　by　the　simple　exercise　of　reason；　come　out　　of　the　primitive　state；　and　institute　what　in　modern　times　is　　called　civilta；　civility；　or　civilization。

The　partisans　of　this　theory　of　the　state　of　nature　from　which　　men　have　emerged　by　the　voluntary　and　deliberate　formation　of　　civil　society；　forget　that　if　government　is　not　the　sole　　condition；　it　is　one　of　the　essential　conditions　of　progress。　　　The　only　progressive　nations　are　51　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　civilized　or　republican　nations。　　　Savage　and　barbarous　tribes　are　unprogressive。　　Ages　on　ages　roll　　over　them　without　changing　any　thing　in　their　state；　and　Niebuhr　　has　well　remarked　with　others；　that　history　records　no　instance　　of　a　savage　tribe　or　people　having　become　civilized　by　its　own　　spontaneous　or　indigenous　efforts。　　If　savage　tribes　have　ever　　become　civilized；　it　has　been　by　influences　from　abroad；　by　the　　aid　of　men　already　civilized；　through　conquest；　colonies；　or　　missionaries；　never　by　their　own　indigenous　efforts；　nor　even　by　　commerce；　as　is　so　confidently　asserted　in　this　mercantile　age。　　　Nothing　in　all　history　indicates　the　ability　of　a　savage　people　　to　pass　of　itself　from　the　savage　state　to　the　civilized。　　But　　the　primitive　man；　as　described　by　Horace　in　his　Satires；　and　　asserted　by　Hobbes；　Locke；　Rousseau；　and　others；　is　far　below　the　　savage。　　The　lowest；　most　degraded；　and　most　debased　savage　tribe　　that　has　yet　been　discovered　has　at　least　some　rude　outlines　or　　feeble　reminiscences　of　a　social　state；　of　government；　morals；　　law；　and　religion；　for　even　in　superstition　the　most　gross　there　　is　a　reminiscence　of　true　religion；　but　the　people　in　the　alleged　　state　of　nature　have　none。

The　advocates　of　the　theory　deceive　themselves　by　transporting　　into　their　imaginary　52　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　state　of　nature　the　views；　habits；　and　　capacities　of　the　civilized　man。　　It　is；　perhaps；　not　difficult　　for　men　who　have　been　civilized；　who　have　the　intelligence；　the　　arts；　the　affections；　and　the　habits　of　civilization；　if　deprived　　by　some　great　social　convulsion　of　society；　and　thrown　back　on　　the　so…called　state　of　nature；　or　cast　away　on　some　uninhabited　　island　in　the　ocean；　and　cut　off　from　all　intercourse　with　the　　rest　of　mankind；　to　reconstruct　civil　society；　and　re…establish　　and　maintain　civil　government。　　They　are　civilized　men；　and　bear　　civil　society　in　their　own　life。　　But　these　are　no　　representatives　of　the　primitive　man　in　the　alleged　state　of　　nature。　　These　primitive　men　have　no　experience；　no　knowledge；　no　　conception　even　of　civilized　life；　or　of　any　state　superior　to　　that　in　which　they　have　thus　far　lived。　　How　then　can　they；　　since；　on　the　theory；　civil　society　has　no　root　in　nature；　but　is　　a　purely　artificial　creation；　even　conceive　of　civilization；　　much　less　realize　it？

These　theorists；　as　theorists　always　do；　fail　to　make　a　complete　　abstraction　of　the　civilized　state；　and　conclude　from　what　they　　feel　they　could　do　in　case　civil　society　were　broken　up；　what　　men　may　do　and　have　done　in　a　state　of　nature。　　Men　cannot　divest　　themselves　of　53　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　themselves；　and；　whatever　their　efforts　to　do　it；　　they　think；　reason；　and　act　as　they　are。

Every　writer；　whatever　else　he　writes；　writes　himself。　　The　　advocates　of　the　theory；　to　have　made　their　abstraction　complete；　　should　have　presented　their　primitive　man　as　below　the　lowest　　known　savage；　unprogressive；　and　in　himself　incapable　of　　developing　any　progressive　energy。　　Unprogressive；　and；　without　　foreign　assistance；　incapable　of　progress；　how　is　it　possible　for　　your　primitive　man　to　pass；　by　his　own　unassisted　efforts；　from　　the　alleged　state　of　nature　to　that　of　civilization；　of　which　he　　has　no　conception；　and　towards　which　no　innate　desire；　no　　instinct；　no　divine　inspiration　pushes　him？

But　even　if；　by　some　happy　inspiration；　hardly　supposable　without　　supernatural　intervention　repudiated　by　the　theoryif　by　some　　happy　inspiration；　a　rare　individual　should　so　far　rise　above　the　　state　of　nature　as　to　conceive　of　civil　society　and　of　civil　　government；　how　could　he　carry　his　conception　into　execution？　　　Conception　is　always　easier　than　its　realization；　and　between　the　　design　and　its　execution　there　is　always　a　weary　distance。　　The　　poetry　of　all　nations　is　a　wail　over　unrealized　ideals。　　It　is　　little　that　even　the　wisest　and　most　potent　statesman　can　realize　　of　what　he　conceives　to　54　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　be　necessary　for　the　state：　political；　　legislative　or　judicial　reforms；　even　when　loudly　demanded；　and　　favored　by　authority；　are　hard　to　be　effected；　and　not　seldom　　generations　come　and　go　without　effecting　them。　　The　republics　of　　Plato；　Sir　Thomas　More；　Campanella；　Harrington；　as　the　　communities　of　Robert　Owen　and　M。　Cabet；　remain　Utopias；　not　　solely　because　intrinsically　absurd；　though　so　in　fact；　but　　chiefly　because　they　are　innovations；　have　no　support　in　　experience；　and　require　for　their　realization　the　modes　of　　thought；　habits；　manners；　character；　life；　which　only　their　　introduction　and　realization　can　supply。　　So　to　be　able　to　　execute　the　design　of　passing　from　the　supposed　state　of　nature　　to　civilization；　the　reformer　would　need　the　intelligence；　the　　habits；　and　characters　in　the　public　which　are　not　possible　　without　civilization　itself。　　Some　philosophers　suppose　men　have　　invented　la