If the historical analogy as a method of political reasoning proved to be of little value to the statesman, it certainly did no harm. But the same innocuous character cannot be claimed for the type of thinking which came in the wake of Bentham and his great discovery that "man, from the very constitution of his nature, prefers his own happiness to that of all other sensitive beings put together." Today the student of politics is on guard against a priori reasoning from supposed fundamental principles." But for the greater part of the nineteenth century Benthamism reigned supreme, and the "Table of the Springs of Action" supplied the logic of the statesman.

Alexander Hamilton, despite the practical character of his statesmanship, defended and utilized in his political thinking the method of a priori deduction from assumed first principles." In disquisitions of every kind," he said, "there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend." Hamilton does not pretend that the principles of ethics and politics rank with the axioms of geometry, but they are often "so obvious in themselves, and so agreeable to the natural and unsophisticated dictates of common sense, that they challenge the assent of a sound and unbiased mind, with a degree of force and conviction almost equally irresistible." For example, "there are certain social principles in human nature from which we may draw the most solid conclusion with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities. We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the center, and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle in which they act."13 Indeed, the refusal to give assent to such principles of moral and political knowledge, Hamilton regarded as evidence of a mind perverted by interest, passion, or prejudice.

Hamilton's law of political development, that "every institu10 Bentham, Works, X, 80.

.

9914

tion will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means concentred towards its formation and support,' was a deduction from the assumption that men always pursue their interests.15 "Men will pursue their interests," Hamilton told the New York Convention in 1788. "It is as easy to change human nature as to oppose the strong current of selfish passions. A wise legislator will gently divert the channel, and direct it, if possible, to the public good." As the first Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, Hamilton acted brilliantly upon this principle as he brought the great business interests of the North and East to the support of the new government. But he failed in the end because he did not put his trust in the sympathies of the people. His realism would not permit him to see that men often cling through sentiment to institutions which may be shown by rational arguments to be imperfect. His great rival, Jefferson, "though not ignorant of the artifices of practical politics, appreciated at more nearly their true value the force of sentiment and disinterestedness in the United States, and was thereby sustained through great vicissitudes of fortune and under the most trying circumstances."'1

It may be argued that the type of reasoning indulged by Hamilton draws its inspiration from John Locke's Essay concerning Human Understanding rather than the works of the founder of Utilitarianism. But the failure to set up the Benthamite paraphernalia on American soil is largely due to the peculiar characteristics of the nation's economy. The abundance of free land, the extent and richness of the natural resources, the enterprise and optimism of the people, and the scope for individual initiative combined to give the United States an era of unparalleled prosperity. "The law of diminishing returns, the Malthusian doctrine of population, the law of the tendency of profits towards a minimum, the wages fund doctrine, seemed to have no application to this country."18 The

"Federalist, No. II.

15 An analysis of the effect of interest on opinion will be found in Lowell, Public Opinion in War and Peace, pp. 53-55.

17

18

Holcombe, The Foundations of the Modern Commonwealth, p. 13.

15 Ingram, History of Political Economy, p. 278.

followers of Hamilton and Jefferson, despite the differences in their political views, had certain common interests and opinions. "The men of both parties were individualistic in spirit, and they were interested in the great American task of improving their own condition in this world. They both wanted a government which would secure them freedom of action for this purpose."19

Now individualism from the outset was the chief characteristic of Benthamism. It was the object of Bentham and his followers to show that every individual by striving solely to promote his own happiness inevitably tended to promote the happiness of society. Paley's theology, Whateley's ethics and economics, Romilly's legal reforms, and the economic and political theories of Ricardo and James Mill were all designed to shed the beneficent light of the "greatest happiness principle" upon a people fast sinking in the morass of the industrial revolution. The results were unfortunate. Instead of providing a democratic social system, Benthamism in the form of a philistine political economy became the philosophy of despair for the great mass of British workingmen.20 The manufacturers of England alone profited by its teachings. In short, individualism became the accepted philosophy of the small but aggressive class of British capitalists who were turning England into the workshop of the world.

On this side of the Atlantic, however, individualism was a national rather than a class characteristic. It grew in strength as each advance of the pioneers subdued the Indians, cleared the forests, and established new settlements. As each decade saw the frontier receding ever farther from the Atlantic seaboard there was evidenced a growth in prosperity and an improved standard of living among the people. The hardy settler might from abject poverty arrive at comfort within a few years and even enjoy luxury for a brief period before being gathered to his fathers. In such a society individualistic and democratic tendencies readily crystallized into a formal political creed.

Individualism in America was grounded upon no supposed fundamental principles as in England. It was rather a hasty deCroly, The Promise of American Life, p. 32.

19

20 Wallas, The Great Society, pp. 111-12.

duction from superficial observation. Nowhere were the foundations of society subjected to scientific analysis.21 Conclusive and mouth-filling phrases served to formulate the political ideas of a people who were in each year growing more prosperous and enjoying an improved standard of living. The belief was general that if people remained poor it was their own fault. Political issues turned solely upon what government might do to further material prosperity. Henry Clay, under pressure from the West for legislation which would bring the products of the factory to the farm, went from free trade to protection with an amazing disregard for the logical quality of his arguments or the soundness of his propositions.22 Webster, who opposed Clay in the tariff debates of 1824, four years later became an advocate of high tariffs on the ground that New England had become protectionist in order to gratify the demand from the West for manufactured goods. But he saw no reason either to engage in critical examination of the basis upon which a protectionist policy should rest or to reconcile his position with the principles laid down in his earlier argument.23 Webster joined the other members of Congress from New England, the Middle States, and the West, who "vied with one another in raising protective duties, by a wild log-rolling process, on the different articles in which their constituents were respectively interested.”** A hard materialism thus crept into American politics unrelieved by any professions or boasts of purity of motives.

The economists, who might be expected to furnish the scientific thought lacking in the politicians, did little to remedy the defects in the methods of political reasoning. Daniel Raymond, whose Thoughts on Political Economy first appeared in 1820, did recognize the anomaly of protection in an individualistic society. But he advocated a scheme of governmental interference so far in advance

21 A recent writer on political theory declares that the United States since 1845 has produced little political philosophy that is of first importance. Laski, Foundations of Sovereignty, p. 10.

of his time that he had little influence on American thought.25 Francis Wayland a little later opposed the protective tariff with arguments drawn largely from Adam Smith. At the same time he argued that government should promote industry by originating knowledge, which must otherwise be obtained at great individual expense-by experimental farms, of which the results should be registered and published by experimental manufactures, which might show, from time to time, what branches of manufacturing could be profitably introduced into a country, and how far they might be most successfully conducted.20 At about the same time that Wayland was writing, Henry Vethake at the University of Pennsylvania was rendering himself unpopular with the vested interests of that state by his opposition to the protective tariff.27 But the most prolific as well as the most influential economist in the United States at this period was Henry C. Carey, whose most comprehensive and mature work appeared in 1858.28 Carey had already produced a study of the tariff which was remarkable for the use made of statistical data." In the beginning, Carey was an earnest advocate of free trade but came around to the belief in protection as a necessary form of intervention to prevent private advantage from working public mischief. He attributes his conversion on the question to his observation of the effects of liberal and protective tariffs respectively on American prosperity. From his 'Neill, "Daniel Raymond, An Early Chapter in the History of Economic Theory in the United States" (J.H.U. Studies, 15th Series), pp. 225, 241. Raymond discusses agriculture, manufactures, and commerce in their influence upon national wealth. Each, he says, is but a part of one great system and wise legislators will encourage or restrain them in such a way as will best advance national wealth and prosperity. "Private citizens can only be expected to be wise for themselves—it is not their duty to look after the public interests-they are not the conservators of national wealth. This belongs to the department of legislation. If, from particular circumstances. . one species of industry is more profitable than another, it must be expected that individuals will embark in it, without any regard to the evil consequences it may produce to succeeding generations; but it does not become a legislator, either to be blind to their consequences, or not to guard against them." Thoughts on Political Economy (edition 1823), II, 166.

25

20 Elements of Political Economy (1837), p. 340.

27

Vethake, Principles of Political Economy (1838), pp. 248 ff.