An outline of political growth in the nineteenth century

Preface

The nineteenth century has had a peculiarly interesting history. Its achievements have been so rich and varied as to bewilder the mind that tries to apprehend them each and all with clearness and accuracy. In art there has been a return to nature, with many gratifying and some subtle and questionable results. The same tendency has manifested itself in poetry, and is to be traced through such widely differing authors as Wordsworth, Leconte de Lisle, and Pushkin. Both romanticists and realists have made brilliant contributions to fiction, and the decadents have at least called forth a storm of criticism. History has seen the development of the trained specialist and original investigator. Science has fathomed some of nature's deepest secrets and revolutionized industry. And in the domain of politics the people have put forth their strength and obtained constitutions.

These are merely a few of the notable movements of the century. All of those that are here enumerated have accomplished vast results, and which of them is the more important and significant cannot be said. Science has effected stupendous changes ; but so too have the revolutions in politics been far-reaching and momentous. It is largely through those revolutions that the human mind has been emancipated, deadening tyranny abolished, and science allowed to work its beneficent reforms. It would therefore appear that the political progress of the century has been of a vital and fundamental character, and that the successive triumphs of popular institutions cannot but form a profoundly interesting story.

vi PREFACE

It is just that story that is recorded in the following pages. Wherever the people have taken the government into their own hands, or forced a recognition, however imperfect, of their chartered rights, they have been included in this brief account of political growth and progress. But though the work claims to be only an outline and by no means an original investigation, it is not a mere record of political facts and constitutional changes. Indeed, it would be difficult to define a political fact. Oriental peoples do not, as a rule, have any political life, and do not grow or change from one century to another. But among the progressive nations all historic events have in the end a political significance ; for out of them arises the whole framework of government and constitutional life. Hence it is as difficult to make a history out of mere legislative annals as it is to make bricks out of sand. Congressional records have no cohesion apart from everyday circumstance. Accordingly, the present treatise deals with all the varied events and happenings that make up the story of a nation's life, even wars receiving some mention, though they are not narrated in detail.'

Doubtless many would assert that a record of political growth should be a record of movements and tendencies rather than an account of individual countries, and that tides of progress which have swept over the whole world cannot be adequately described when each nation has its own separate treatment. That there is force in this objection may be readily admitted; but the fact remains that a nation cannot be a nation unless it has a life and history of its own. It was to portray that life and history that the present work was written, and the separate treatment was designedly adopted. There are excellent works that emphasize the unity of contemporaneous movements and events; but their very plan prevents them from giving a connected sketch of each country

PREFACE that is treated, and the connected sketch is for many purposes convenient and desirable.

It is hoped that even this meagre outline of events may awaken an interest in political study, and create a desire for a fuller knowledge of the progress of democracy. For the benefit of all who may be so stimulated a bibliography is placed at the end of the volume. It is by no means exhaustive, and is not intended for the advanced specialist who is sure to have access to the many admirable and learned bibliographies that have been published. But to many students who seek fuller information than the present volume affords it may serve a useful purpose.

E. H. S.

Saint Louis, January, 1900.

Book II GEEAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES

Character of Great Britain's Political Progress. — Her

History from 1800 to the Death of George III. in 1820 . 265

CHAPTER II George IV. —William IV 277

CHAPTER III Queen Victoria's Reign to the Death of Lord Palmerston . 286

CHAPTER IV Mr. Gladstone. — Lord Beaconsfield. — Recent Events . 298

CHAPTER V Canada. — Newfoundland 331

Book III PAGE

The Beginnings of the Republic 383

CHAPTER II The Administrations of Washington, John Adams, and Jefferson 387

CHAPTER III The Administrations of Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy

Adams 394

CHAPTER IV The Administrations of Jackson and Van Bdren . . . 403

CHAPTER V The Administrations of Harrison and Tyler, Polk, and Tay- , LOR AND Fillmore ......... 407

CHAPTER VI The Administrations of Pierce and Buchanan .... 414

CHAPTER VII Lincoln's Administration. — The Civil War .... 422

CHAPTER VIII The Administrations of Johnson and Grant. — Reconstruction 426

CHAPTER VI SiAM 565 POLITICAL GROWTH IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

The French Revolution inaugurated one of the greatest epochs of history. Prior to the Revolution government by the people was hardly known on the continent of Europe. France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and all the minor Germanic states were governed in the interests of the privileged classes. Switzerland during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was controlled by an aristocracy, and was practically a dependency of France. In Denmark the nobility had lost much of its ancient prestige and influence, as its power had been broken by a political revolution in 1660; but the king exercised autocratic sway. In Sweden, on the other hand, the nobles usurped the power and made the king little better than a figure-head, until Gustavus III. reasserted the royal prerogative toward the close of the eighteenth century ; and afterward the country had no immediate political development. In the Netherlands, though the spirit of equality was prevalent, it had not created a democratic form of government. England was the only European country in which the will of the people was consulted before the French Revolution. Yet England was by no means a true democracy. For the king exercised his power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, and the laboring classes could not vote nor find deliverance from cruel laws. Nowhere in Europe were the people truly their own masters. They could not vote; they could not make or unmake laws. They could not resist the exactions of tyrannical rulers and domineering nobles.

The theory of the divine right of kings was widely prevalent. The privileged classes claimed every jot and tittle of their rights, and the common people were not supposed to have any rights at all. Consequently, they were oppressed and neglected in many ways. Lacking power, they lacked wellnigh everything. They suffered from hunger, from sickness, and from excessive toil. They were uncleanly, ignorant, and degraded. Their petty offences were treated as crimes, and not uncommonly punished by death. Nor could they be sure of acquittal when unjustly accused. Evidence was not carefully sifted in the court of justice; and a poor man charged with crime was assumed guilty. Little was done to relieve the condition of the sick, the insane, and the impoverished. The day of hospitals and asylums had not come, and the prisons were scenes of brutality and ghastly misery. In some countries the poorer classes received much worse treatment than in others, but nowhere were they able to better their condition. To do this they needed the power to make and unmake laws; and this power the nineteenth century was to give them. The old order of things was to pass from the hands of a privileged few into the hands of the people. Might was not to make right any longer. A new era of justice, equality, and liberty was to dawn upon the oppressed and suffering commoner; and it was heralded by the French Revolution. That bloody episode in history inaugurated vast political and social changes, which were taking place all through the nineteenth century and which have revolutionized the character of government over a great part of the civilized world.

These changes have had common features where they have occurred ; but they have not produced the same political conditions in all countries and among all peoples. That were indeed impossible. For they have been introduced into lands differing radically from each other in historic development, and inhabited by races of widely varying characteristics and methods of thought. Democratic government could not mean to the Spaniard what it means to the Saxon ; it could not produce the same results among the Norwegians and the Slavs. Accordingly, a history of the political growth of the nineteenth century should be something more than an unsystematized record of the constitutional changes that have been adopted by the progressive nations of the world. Rather should it group together those countries that have been animated by like impulses and have had a common development or a common political experience. That such a classification cannot be perfect or thoroughly scientific may, at the outset, be acknowledged. No matter whether the principle of classification that is adopted be geographical, racial, or historical, in the very nature of things it must sometimes be at fault. For nations, like individuals, are free agents and given to glaring inconsistencies of conduct. Their actions cannot be reduced to rule and theory. The political philosopher who has fathomed, as he thinks, the character of a race, a period, or a movement, suddenly finds himself confronted by the startling, the unexpected, or the extraordinary, and his well-constructed theories fall to the ground. It is in no spirit of dogmatism, therefore, that the countries discussed in the present treatise are placed in separate political groups. Such an attempt at classification is made largely for the purposes of convenience. By means of it the mind of the reader may be saved from confusion, and the work may be saved from appearing fragmentary and disconnected. It is not exclusively the geographical, the racial, or the historic method of classification that is employed; but rather is each made use of as it may seem to be appropriately applied. Proceeding upon this plan we may recognize the following divisions and subdivisions of the subject: —

I. Tlie Countries of Contineyital Eurojje. — These countries are grouped together because their geographical connection has given them a common political experience. This is true especially of particular eras or periods, when a common impulse has swept over the whole length and breadth of European soil. It was illustrated by the Crusades in the Middle Ages. The union of nearly all Europe against Napoleon is a further illustration. Again, the revolutionary outbreaks in 1848 and the socialistic movements in recent years have shown that the term " Europe " is a political as well as a geographical expression, and that the different European countries are, to some extent, forced to share a common political destiny. Yet these countries have by no means progressed together toward the modern ideal of government by and for the people. Some of them have been truly democratic ; others have used the powers of democracy to cover tyranny and despotism. Three subdivisions of the European nations may therefore be recognized.

(1) The Latin Countries. It was in France, the greatest and most brilliant of the Latin nations, that the modern democratic movement was begun by the French Eevolution. The impulsive and excitable French people suddenly burst the political bonds that held them, threw aside all restraint, and asserted their freedom by violence, fury, and blood-guiltiness. The same tendency to excess has marked their conduct in more recent times, as the atrocities of the Commune in 1871 and the vindictive persecution of Dreyfus may testify. Explosiveness, vehemence, and sentimentality characterize the French people ; and these same traits seem to belong to the Latin races of Southern Europe. Hence, in Portugal, in Spain, and in Italy, we see political progress accompanied by reckless utterance, shifting administrations, unsteadiness of purpose, and seasons of popular apathy succeeded by seething discontent and revolutionary activity. These nations, it is to be noticed, have shown themselves quite as progressive in adopting universal suffrage as the better educated Teutonic peoples;^ but in no one of them does there exist a government that can properly be called democratic. In no one of them do. the people exercise an intelligent control of affairs.

With these nations is to be classed Belgium, for its politics are dominated by the excitable Southern temper. A large portion of its population is Germanic, but the Celtic element seems to have given its characteristics to the whole nation and to have controlled its political development. Hence Belgium has recently made radical constitutional changes in a period of feverish excitement attended by extensive strikes of the workingmen.

(2) The political development of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the various nations of Southeastern Europe has been retarded both by geographical, racial, and historic causes. Situated as they are, these countries have been almost as much subject to Asiatic as to European influences; they are, to a considerable extent, peopled by races that have the subservient Oriental temper; and they were, through many centuries, the scene of internecine conflicts, cruel tyranny, and strange

1 Universal suflfrage exists in France and Spain ; but not in Italy and Portngal. It is found in Denmark and in the German Empire ; but not in Hollaiul, Sweden, Norway, nor in most of the separate states that compose Germany.

political vicissitudes. In Southeastern Europe, the Slav, the German, the Turanian, the Greek, the Vlach, the Turk, and the Albanian have lived side by side, and seldom have they mingled in amity and concord. Among these peoples the Austrian-Germans have held a peculiar place. Belonging to the great Teutonic race, ruled by the splendid Hapsburg House, dwelling almost in the shadow of the Alps, they have shared the civilization and the political experiences of Western Europe. But in the end they were forced to turn rather to the East than to the West, and to-day they are working out their destiny with Czechs, Magyars, Poles, Ruthenians, and other uncongenial peoples. And their experience is not dissimilar to that of the other peoples who are here grouped together. Austria, Russia, and the countries of Southeastern Europe are not homogeneous. It is rather because they have clashed so frequently that they have been slow to break loose from the customs, the traditions, and the political ideals of the past.

(3) Five European countries — Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden — are peopled by various branches of the Teutonic race ; and, though differing widely in temper, manners, and customs, the inhabitants of these countries yet possess common aspirations, common race instincts, and common political views. These countries are all Protestant (though Germany is one third Catholic) ; they all have admirable educational systems ; and in all of them the people are reflective rather than emotional.^ Moreover, in all these Teutonic countries two traits, dissimilar and yet not antagonistic, are found to be deeply rooted in the national character, — independence, and respect for authority. It is largely owing to these traits that the Teutonic countries have been moved by the same political ideals, and have had a similar political development. All of them have clung to monarchy, even Holland having ultimately preferred the rule of a king to a republican form of government ; yet all of them have hedged the king about by constitutional safeguards, which protect the people from tyranny and despotism. As the subsequent pages will show, these safeguards have more than once been set aside

1 Such broad generalizations are only approximately accurate. The Dutch are phlegmatic, the Danes vivacious, and the Norwegians fiery and impetuous, like the old Vikings, when once aroused.

by self-willed sovereigns; but in the end the people have shown themselves supreme, and have not allowed the liberty of the individual to be sacrificed to the outworn theory of absolutism. True, the Emperor of Germany has shown himself an autocrat, and the individual who stands against him is imprisoned for Use-viajest4 ; but his extravagant self-assertion has offended the thoughtful portion of his subjects, and the growth of the Social Democrats in Germany points to the ultimate overthrow of a mediseval imperialism. The Teutonic nations move slowly, but they move toward the democratic ideal of enliglitened self-government.

With these nations Switzerland is classed in the present treatise, because the Swiss Confederation had a Germanic origin and because the Cantons are to-day largely inhabited by a Germanic population. It must be admitted that the peculiarities of its political organization fairly entitle Switzerland to a place by itself, and make it difficult to class it with any group of nations. But though its government lias been constructed on the federative plan and resembles no other in Europe, it still remains true that the Swiss people have shown the dominant Germanic traits in their political development. They have shown a sturdy self-respect, a love of individual freedom, and a tendency to recognize constitutional authority. Certainly, the political growth of Switzerland illustrates the German rather than the French view of government.

II. Great Britain and her Colonies. — One remarkable Germanic people left its home in continental Europe many centuries ago, and founded what was destined to become one of the greatest of modern nations. The Saxons are treated by themselves, both because their island home has made them independent of the rest of Europe, and because their political institutions have a character that is all their own. Even when the divine right of kings was generally recognized, the Saxon began to demand a share in the functions of government; and this demand he has pressed home through centuries of political warfare. Hence, the English parliamentary system grew up and gradually became the most perfect example of representative government the world has seen. At the opening of the nineteenth century it was in the highly developed state to which seven centuries of constitutional life and effort had brought it; but there was still room for radical changes, and that these changes were brought about later will be shown.

But the Anglo-Saxon people was too full of life and energy to confine its political life to a single island. The race spread all over the world, and in every quarter of the globe the Anglo- Saxon laid his hand on rich and fertile lands and claimed them as his own. As his claim was substantiated and these possessions began to teem with Anglo-Saxon homes, the same political instincts which had created the English Constitution caused a new and notable development of representative institutions. The Colonies of Great Britain borrowed her system of government; at the same time they altered it and adapted it to more democratic conditions of life and society than prevailed in the mother-country. But their alterations were not radical. The colonial systems of government were an orderly and natural development from that of Great Britain herself, not a surrender of those political privileges which the Englishman holds dear. Hence, the Colonies of Great Britain are appropriately treated in connection with the mother-country, and as making a part of one vast imperial system whose members must become more closely allied as the principles of federation gain strength and recognition.

Not all of the British Colonies, however, are considered in the present work, for not all of them by any means have had an independent political development. Three classes of colonies are recognized by the British government: (1) Crown colonies; (2) colonies with representative institutions; and (3) colonies having responsible government. The first are controlled entirely by the Crown, acting through its ministers. The second are controlled partially, the Crown having the right to veto legislation and exercising authoiity over public officers. The last recognize the Crown as the ultimate source of power, for they accept the Governor-General whom the Crown appoints, and accord to him, as representing the sovereign, a restricted right of veto over legislation; but they frame and adopt their own Constitutions (with the approval of the British Parliament), and they choose their own officers in such manner as the Constitution provides.

Most of Great Britain's Colonies belong to the first class; a few of them to the second; while Canada, Newfoundland, the Australian Colonies, New Zealand, Cape Colony, and Natal belong to the third. These last-named colonies are peopled largely by Anglo-Saxons. Hence, possessing an English population and English institutions, they are appropriately placed in a single class with the mother-country.

III. The United States of America. — This great American Republic ,is also an Anglo-Saxon country. Its thoroughly democratic system of government is plainly a product of the English political genius, inspired and quickened by new experiences in a new and stimulating world. But just because of these new and profound experiences the American Anglo- Saxons could not simply reproduce on American soil the English Constitution. Hamilton, English by birth, would fain have done this, though even he would have allowed considerable modifications. Jefferson, a profounder student of history, saw that America must have its own development. His view prevailed, and the Constitution and government of the United States are the expression of the new democracy, which, through the federative principle, has attained to national strength and greatness. The Americans have preserved the English love of liberty, and the English respect for the rights of the people; but they have given democratic institutions such free and full development that their country has nowhere been more fiercely criticised than in England itself; and it should be considered by itself both because of its individual character and its vast historic importance.

IV. Mexico, Central America, and South America. — These vast stretches of country, with their numerous states, have received their political growth from the people of the Latin race. Hence, they are closely allied to the Latin nations of Europe, and throughout the nineteenth century they have shown the same restlessness and instability that have characterized France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. But the conditions under which they have fought their way to independence and adopted democratic institutions have been adverse, and a lenient judgment may fairly be passed upon their shortcomings. If they have failed to become genuine republics, allowance must be made for centuries of oppression, for a bigoted priestly rule, for prevailing ignorance and superstition, and for lack of political training. Yet some of them have made notable progress in spite of these drawbacks, and in all of them the attempt to establish republican institutions shows that the ideal of self-government is more or less perfectly followed. There is no doubt that the example of the United States has inspired the people of these countries with a love of democracy, and has created a kinship between the Spanish American states and the great North American Republic. These countries, therefore, though they cannot properly be classed with the United States, may fittingly be placed in the group that immediately follows it.

V. Unclassified Countries. — Democracy has found its way into every continent, but in Asia and Africa it has thus far received a very scant recognition. The African race has not yet shown itself capable of self-government. It has attempted to found a republic in West Africa, and another on the island of Haiti, but neither of them has flourished. The mulattoes of Haiti have also founded a republic, so called, which goes by the name of San Domingo;^ but they have been no more successful than their darker brethren in establishing democratic rule. Neither Liberia, Haiti, nor San Domingo has contributed anything to the political progress of the century.

Asia has proved hardly more congenial than Africa to the growth of constitutional government; yet one Asiatic country has made astonishing progress in the last few decades. Japan, after borrowing many things from Europe, finally borrowed political ideas and practices, and made the people the rulers of the country. This change was not accomplished easily or all at once ; but little by little the Japanese learned the meaning of responsible government, and emancipated themselves from the traditions which had bound them for hundreds of years. Their recent history is well worthy of study, as it shows that even in the Orient the warfare of political parties has become a chief factor in national progress and development.

No other Asiatic country besides Japan has shown marked democratic tendencies ; but for reasons that are given in their proper connection both India and Siam have been included in the present treatise. The former country, however much or

1 Or Santo Domingo. But usage seems to prefer San Domingo for the State, aud Santo Domingo for its capital city.

10 INTRODUCTION little it is gaining politically, is at least receiving object-lessons in the art of government; and Siam has lately attracted attention because it has allowed the introduction of modern inventions and improvements.

The countries that have been thus grouped and classified do not altogether comprise a half of the earth's surface. Democracy, therefore, has still vast fields before it to enter and subdue. But it is a significant fact that the races possessing the greatest genius for government are continually extending their jurisdiction over new territory, and thus bringing new lands into the political arena of the world. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and vast stretches of the Dominion of Canada were outside of the sphere of politics until England brought them under her imperial sway. Nor did civilization enter Siberia until Russia took up her mighty march toward the Pacific Ocean. It was indeed a sorry type of civilization that she carried into the Siberian wilds. Its emblems were but too frequently the knout, the dungeon, and the convict's garb. Yet Russia is one of the growing and progressive nations of the world, even if it has not yet adopted constitutional government; and the spread of Russian influence must ultimately mean the spread of commercial activity, law, order, and education. Hence, the Slav, as well as the Saxon, is contributing to the world's political development, though hardly as yet to the cause of democratic government; and the Latin and Teutonic peoples are furthering the same end. When we consider the vast areas that have been added to civilization during the last hundred years, we may well question whether a history of political growth in the twentieth century will not include nearly all the countries in the world.

Part I TEE LATIN NATIONS

FRANCE PORTUGAL

ITALY BELGIUM

SPAIN SAN MARINO

ANDORRA

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEON

Though the lot of the people was quite generally an unhappy one prior to the nineteenth century, in France it was especially hard. The States-General, an ancient assembly composed of the three estates, namely, the clergy, the nobility, and the commons, had been summoned by Richelieu in 1614. But this gathering accomplished nothing at that time, for it had no legislative power. Accordingly, it was ignored for nearly two hundred years, and during this time the people had no means of voicing their grievances. Yet these grievances were bitter and increasingly great. The people bore the whole burden of taxation, while the clergy and the nobles were exempted. The kings plunged the country into sanguinary wars, and exhausted its resources. The peasants grew poorer and poorer, and died in great numbers from famine. They commonly lived in houses of wood and stone which had no windows. They dressed in rags and seldom tasted meat. In some districts, indeed, they lived chiefly on grass and the bark of trees. Yet, poor and squalid as they were, it was not their poverty alone that made them bitter and resentful. For while they lived in misery, the court was extravagant and the nobles were riotous and prodigal.^ The grimy and emaciated rustics could not help comparing their own squalor with the luxury of the privileged few. The King gave away every year sums equivalent to many millions of dollars. The money spent upon his dogs and horses would have maintained a village ; and in and around the palace no less than fifteen thousand people found support. The court, moreover, was a scene of gayety and frivolous pleasure even while the people

1 " The court was the tomb of the nation, but it was as well a charming as a brilliant tomb." — Von Hoist, " The French Revolution," I. 74.

were perishing. Louis XVI. did, indeed, pity his suffering subjects and try to help them ; but the nobles and ladies about him did not share, or even understand, his kindness of heart. They lived simply for enjoyment. Of conscience and deep feeling the French nobles had little. Their code was honor, not morality; and though they were faithful to it, they made it sanction vicious habits of life. Courage and loyalty to the King were their especial virtues ; and these virtues, it must be admitted, they showed conspicuously. They had the pride, the spirit, and the recklessness that result from power. But toward the common people they were haughty and insolent. They owned large estates, but they used them merely to maintain themselves in luxury. The peasantry were still required to give them certain feudal services; and these services were exacted with merciless severity. The peasant had to bake in his lord's oven and grind in his lord's mill; he could not sell his wine until the great estate owner had had his chance at the market; for a fixed number of days each year he was compelled to give his own labor and that of his oxen ; and he was obliged to buy salt of the King whether he wanted it or not, or else go to prison or the galleys. The taxes were absurdly high, but if they were not paid the delinquent's furniture was sold. But perhaps the most wanton and galling injustice arose from that passionate love of hunting which the French nobility shared with that of England and other European countries. For no matter how much damage the game did to the crops, the peasant could not protect himself. It was a crime for him to slay the creatures of the forest; nor could he prevent the hounds and hunters from trampling his fields of grain.