網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

brutal ferocity and force are introduced as the normal condition of society; by which are produced a state of universal slavery, and the exercise of unrestrained individual power, carried to the utmost extent that it is possible to carry them in any social combination. By this peculiar constitution of the Negro, "Sociability," "Sexuality," and "Destruction," which are the destructive laws of the Affectional Nature, are made to constitute the ruling affectional laws of his constitution; and as this law of Destruction, which is a love for destruction, has not in him been made subject to an opposite vital principle, which is a love of life, and as the department of the mind of which this constitutes the motive power is the executive department of the Affectional Nature, we may see why it is so difficult to restrain the manifestation of this principle in the Negro, when it has become excited, and why no regard for human life can be supposed to exist in him. Indifference to death, therefore, arises in the Negro simply in his contempt for life, while in the Indian it arises in the opposite, contempt for death; and the Negro, in his natural state, has no belief in a future state of being, while in the Indian this belief is one of the most vivid and operative of all his ideas. How blind, then, are those individuals who would treat such subjects as if they were possessed of the same affections, capacities, sensibilities, and aspirations as themselves! and how wicked are they who would take advantage of white influence in exciting this unreclaimed and thus destructive affectional force of the Negro, when it can only bring destruction both upon their own heads and upon those under whose salutary control they live! If they in this err ignorantly, it is because the affectional principle has become predominant in themselves, and they, too, have unconsciously become destructive.

According to the classification of races that has here been realized in a scientific form, the Caucasian is the supernatural and productive race, which represents the realization of Spiritual Life through Marriage. This constitutes it the only perfect and improvable race, and thus the only one to which can belong a continuous progress, and, consequently, a history. In the natural condition of this race, it therefore becomes universally representative, instead of being partially representative like the other races, and is consequently subdivided into nations which represent, upon a higher plane, the same principles; it being necessary that the most general divisions of consciousness, or forms of human life, should be separately represented by the nations as well as by the

[blocks in formation]

races of mankind, and even by the individuals who compose them. For this reason, and because this race is improvable and continually progressive, diversity in individual growth and in mental development is necessarily incidental to it; and we consequently here find all the degrees of social culture, and all the varieties of character and capacity, that can be conceived as belonging to a civilized people. All the nations belonging to this race, however, include the element of progress; manifest a self-directing activity which aims at improvement by the increase of knowledge, of wealth, and of power; exhibit productions of philosophical and scientific thought, and also of genuine art; and, finally, are receptive of Christianity. These are the characteristics which distinguish this from the other races.

We may illustrate this fact of national representation by contrasting the French and English nations. It is well known that these nations are in every thing opposite, and naturally hostile; and this difference and this hostility arise in the fact, that they are the representatives of opposite individual and social principles, by which the French become relatively internal, intellectual, and democratic, and the English external, affectional, and aristocratic. Hence, although the form of government in France has always been highly aristocratic, as we shall show that it must be, in order that democratic results should be produced, its social institutions have always been democratic in character, while the tendencies of the people have been even excessively so; all their manners, customs, and modes of thought, being in direct opposition to externalism and formalism, and to all absolute rule not harmonious with the democratic principle, or with the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is this representative character that makes them so revolutionary, or so ready to overturn the governernment of the country when the accumulated evils which result from aristocracy have encroached too far upon the prosperity of the masses, that leads them to regard the substance and to disregard the forms of things, which they seem to do from some intuitive perception of the natural opposition between them, leads them to prefer an aristocratic to a democratic form of government, because democratic results can be more readily secured to them through this form,—and that leads them to disregard many of the forms which usually regulate the intercourse between individuals, in order that the advantages which this intercourse is calculated to afford may be the more perfectly secured to them. It is this that makes them pre-eminently practical, prosperous, and

that

happy, as a nation, and also eminently moral; and makes them superior to the English in Philosophy, in Science, and in Art.

With regard to England, although her government has always been comparatively popular or representative in its form, her institutions have been as decidedly aristocratic as those of France have been democratic; while the people are well known to be proud, arbitrary, and aristocratic, and, socially considered, to be as much devoted to persons and to the forms of things, as the French are to principles and to the substance of things. It is this that makes the people of England so averse to revolution, that they will suffer almost any amount of oppression, without being excited to revolt against their rulers. Revolutions in the government have therefore been produced either by religious changes, or from the conflicts of aristocratic leaders to obtain power. The consequence of this aristocratic condition of the institutions and the people of England has been, that there is no nation in the world where the higher and the lower classes are so extremely antagonized, or where the degradation of the lower classes is so great. The fact here alluded to, that democracy becomes manifested through an aristocratic, and aristocracy through a democratic form, is in perfect harmony with the law of "Contrariety," soon to be stated, under the operation of which the form and the substance of things become antagonized. This fact is readily apprehended by those who are really democratic, and is therefore recognized even by the common people of France; while by those who at the same time possess a knowledge of principles, and of the relation between causes and consequences, it is clearly understood. It was therefore said by M. Thiers, who belongs to this latter class, "An aristocratic element is more particularly suitable to republics;" and Louis Napoleon has added, "An aristocracy does not need a chief, while it is the nature of Democracy to personify itself in one man." It is this relation between Absolutism and Democracy which constitutes the ground of antagonism between the head of a nation and the Nobles, who constitute the Aristocracy; and is the cause of that contest for supremacy which has always been carried on between them, a contest that is strikingly illustrated by the frequent conspiracies of the Nobles, and by the wars between the Nobles and the King, in France, where the power of the Aristocracy was at last overthrown by the great revolution, and is systematically kept in subjection under the Empire, which was established by the great Napoleon as the representative of Democracy.

It is not our intention, however, to carry out this comparison of national characteristics for the purpose of illustrating the position here assumed from an abstract point of view, that the nations belonging to the Caucasian race represent the universal fivefold form of Existence; although the fact that individuals of every nation, as well as all nations, are to be classified under this general form, will be shown by the analysis of the principles of Democracy and Aristocracy in our statement of the "Structure of Society." To describe in an adequate manner the representative character of the congregated nations of the civilized world would require more time, space, and historical knowledge, than we could possibly command; and it will not therefore be attempted. We have been obliged to affirm this representation by these nations because it is demanded by our science; and we have referred to the French and English nations for illustration of this, because they offer the most striking and familiar examples, and are the most prominent national representatives of Democracy and Aristocracy, which constitute the internal and external elements of the State.

THE STRUCTURE

OF

THE HUMAN CONSTITUTION

WHICH ILLUSTRATES

THE LAWS OF CORRESPONDENCE.

HAVING shown that the races of mankind are constituted in conformity with the Laws of Correspondence here made known, we will proceed to consider the Constitution of Man as he is presented to our observation in the Caucasian Race, and show that he is created in the Image of God, and that this constitution is in every part an illustration of these laws. Thus far, we have depended upon legitimate logical and analogical deductions from premises originally assumed as self-evident facts, and upon illustrations drawn from external phenomena which belong to the region of material science and of common observation, which cannot well be disputed; but, in coming into the region of Psychology, the question arises, How can the laws of this science be illustrated by reference to the structure of the human constitution, when so much diversity of opinion exists as to what are the principles which constitute it? In resorting to Psychology for illustrations of these laws, we have taken the only possible course that was open to us. We could not make use of any of the existing theories of Human Nature, because they are simply psychological; that is, they are not founded in any ontological laws, but are only partial and promiscuous generalizations of the phenomena of the natural consciousness, which are thoroughly deceptive and discordant, and therefore are not only separated from all universal laws, which makes them unfit for the illustration of a universal science, but are destitute of any consistency either in themselves or with each other, and cannot therefore be classified under any scientific form whatever. We are therefore compelled to make use of the psychological system which forms one portion of this science, and which has been realized in its present form by the application of the ontological laws first

« 上一頁繼續 »