date

1819 May 21 Objection III
1819 May 21

Objection III

Love of liberty extinguished

Election meetings safe

14

Teeming with violence and absurdity, yes: but the more frequent, and the longer the frequency of them has continued, the less pregnant with these evils will they be Already in the United States there is less of them than here. The violence is produced by the two[?] with warranted indignation against constant and continually renewed tyranny.

3. Election Meetings are the safest of all public meetings. By legality they confer importance.

Observation. The safest, yes: viz as against the tyranny that seeks to suppress them: and spares no expence in the shape of false pretences for that purpose. In the United States all public meetings are safe: safe in both senses: safe as against tyrannical suppression by the ruling few: safe as against tumults and other disorders on the part of the subject many.

By legality they confer importance. In this is not something like an insinuation contained that for the purpose of giving this importance to one meeting in seven years it would a measure of beneficence /good for liberty/ to suppress all others? Is not this something like the head or tail of the snake peeping out of the grass?

4. They excite universal interest: as do for example the accounts given of battles.

5. “In this manner is formed democratic ascendancy: which is most perfect when the greatest numbers of independent judgments influence the measures of government.”

Bravo! democratic ascendancy! And so for the moment at least, and for the purpose of this part of the argument, the Reviewer adopts the expression, and approves the thing. Democratic ascendancy? and how to be obtained? By meetings of the people in not one third of the whole number of Election Districts by which seats are filled, and of those assembled while the greater part are excluded by distance and expence, one part brought together by intimidation another part by direct or virtual bribery, and only a minute part free.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 May 21 Defence of Ballot]
    Description: 1819 May 21

    Defence of Ballot

    Objection III hostile to liberty

    Love of liberty extinguished

    11

    ☞ Here insert the passage from “Lastly” to encroachment on[?] it[?] M.S. p.4

    Admirable is the art which this part of the argument brings into exercise.

    1. {Insinuation.} By {insinuation} /tacit assumption/ {the reader is endeavoured to be led to believe} the concession endeavoured to be instilled, is that if there were no discussion at the very time of voting the votes being at the same time, there would be no discussion at any /all/ other time

    2 Use made of the word liberty in the phrase love of liberty. {Liberty is a very convenient word to anti reformists.} In the word liberty, anti reformists find a very convenient word. By it they contrive to connect in mens minds with the idea of good government rendered such by democratic ascendancy /that is of democratical government/ mischiefs and vices which not only are separable from it, but are actually separated from it. It is by this means their endeavour to entertain in the minds /sober mind/ of the lovers of peace and virtue the sentiments /affections/ of fear hatred and contempt towards that form of government and those who advocate it. Moreover not only is the idea of these evils as if inseparably connected with democratical government useful to them for this purpose, but in their capacity of Election terrorists, the evils themselves are in various ways subservient to their use. They serve to exclude from the scene in a more or less considerable proportion those would-be voters /Electors/ who are not brought thither by one or other of the engines /artificial stimuli/ which they have at their command: intimidation or bribery: bribery including those kindred practices which have the effect of it. +

    For my own part Aware of the illusions and deception of which it /the much misused word/ is productive Destitute altogether of the characteristic and indispensable talent of learned Gentlemen – the talent of arguing against my own opinion I have at all times avoided as much as possible the use of it: instead of it I have used the words security or good government: security for the blessing itself, good government for the cause of it: security namely against oppression by the hands of rulers

    + See

    [marginal insertion:] Election riots or tumults “mischief to person and property defa groundless and impudent defamation and vituperation malevolence of seeking its gratification in insulting language and deportment injurious to the reputation /estimation/ of him who is the object of it
  • Title: [nd [wm 1816] Note Plan & Bill]
    Description: nd [wm 1816]

    Note

    Plan & Bill difference

    4

    At the time of the associated confederacy democratic ascendancy in every thing but

    the name the declared /arrived/ object of their labours. From that time affection has

    been giving way to indifference indifference to abhorrence. Abhorrence and at what

    period? At a period at which already every day brings encreasing notorious[?]

    evidence of the encreasing undangerousness /safety/ salubriousness[?] of democratic

    government, the people in this country more and more enlightened less and less in

    danger, notwithstanding the power taken from above to draw them into it, of being

    harried into acts of mischievous and useless violence the example of the United

    States growing every day more instructive and more conclusive. Democracy and that so

    much power than any thing which in this country any one presumes to call for any

    town[?] dares so much as to dream of – Democracy the purest democracy – not only

    fraught[?] /productive/ and – perfective with all their good effects /blessings/ for

    the sake of which it was ever courted, but pure – compleatly pure – from all those

    supposed dangers /supposed dangers and disorders/ which form the sole ground of every

    object – which all the ingenuity of […?] /of exalted […?] and pretended […?]/ could

    ever find or object to that form of government pure from those disorders of which the

    boasted government of this country has so lately afforded such melancholy[?] and

    incontestable examples
  • Title: [[in copyist’s hand] 1819 May 24]
    Description: [in copyist’s hand]

    1819 May 24

    Defence of Ballot

    Canvassings, from Fearon

    2

    Since the first choice of M r Jefferson, the presidential Elections are managed by private Meetings (or Caucus) of the democratic Members of Congress, previous to Elections: they settle among themselves who shall be president. This is what is called getting “the appointment in Caucus”, and an instance never occurs of the votes being in opposition to Caucus. When they have determined upon who they wish to be President, they sent Circulars to their different states, pointing out, by a sort of congé d’elire, who they have resolved should be elected: and as the right of voting for Presidents is confined to a very limited number, there is no instance of the Caucus being disobeyed. M r Munroe being a Democrat was, as a matter of course, voted for by the democratic states; and those of New England being federal, would not, I believe, give a vote upon the occasion. It appears that the Members of the Washington Caucus were almost equally divided between M r Crawford and M r Munroe; but that some accommodation being agreed upon, the latter got “the appointment”. Had his rival obtained this, he and not M r Munroe would have been voted for by the democratic states, as a matter of course. These are alarming facts; for thus we see that the very men (the Members of Congress) who are directly excluded by the Constitution from voting, become, by means of a secret something unknown to that Constitution, and at variance with both its letter and Spirit, the real Electors to the Presidentship. How necessary are the most unceasing vigilance, and the greatest degree of public principle and public virtue, to preserve even the best Institutions from gross perversion! No oligarchy can ever be more dangerous than this, which deludes the people with a belief

    that