![]() | This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.(May 2009) |
![]() 1956 edition (publ. Vintage Books) | |
Author | James Fenimore Cooper |
---|---|
Cover artist | Paul Rand (see image) |
Genre | Political essay |
Publisher | H. & E. Phinney |
Publication date | 1838 |
Pages | 192 |
OCLC | 838066322 |
The American Democrat: Or, Hints on the Social and Civic Relations of the United States of America, a political essay written by American republican author James Fenimore Cooper, was published initially in New York State in 1838. Originally intended as a textbook on the American republican democracy, the work analyzes the social forces that shape, and can ultimately corrupt such a system.
It served as an indictment of public opinion, which he argued had the potential to corrupt public morals and democracy. Because The American Democrat did not intrigue the public like a novel would have, it was neither purchased in the United States nor published in Europe. [1] The essay, however, provided the intellectual framework and concepts for two later works of fiction: Homeward Bound: or The Chase: A Tale of the Sea and Home as Found: Sequel to Homeward Bound . Unlike his previous work where he set out to create American literature, this essay is credited with helping Cooper to establish a new identity as a writer as one who exposed the vices in society. [2]
The American Democrat arose out of three major events in Cooper's life. The first was his experience abroad. Cooper had lived in Europe – mainly in Paris– between 1826 and 1833. This experience, according to Cooper, helped him become "a foreigner in his own country," [3] allowing him to "present to the reader those opinions that are suited to the actual condition of the country, [rather] than to dwell on principles more general." [4]
The American Democrat also arose out of the Three Mile Point dispute, which ended on July 22, 1837. This controversy began when the people of his hometown, Cooperstown, trespassed onto his property, using it as a picnic ground. After Cooper's publication of a notice about trespassing on his land, the citizens and the press of Cooperstown organized a protest against him. Attacks by the Whig newspapers continued even after Cooper had proved his ownership of that piece of property. [5] This occurrence led Cooper to write about the role of property rights in America, "giv[ing] universal meaning" to the dispute. [6]
The final event in Cooper's life that influenced his message in The American Democrat was his experience with libel lawsuits. His struggles with the Whig press, who had published libelous statements about him, escalated between 1837 and 1838.
In Cooper's mind, the divine, moral, natural, and civil laws were intertwined. Influenced by John Locke and Alexander Pope, he believed that natural law was "the will of God's providence operating in nature according to observable principles," [7] such as property rights, deism, and biblical truth. These views were further influenced by the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison. Their ideas led him to believe that is necessary to protect the entire country from man's inherently self-serving nature.
The political situation in the late 1830s made Cooper feel as though the true nature of civil law and government was being disregarded. Hence, by 1838, "the troubles created by legislative usurpation, demagoguery, rotation in office, and leveling to mediocrity had, in Cooper's view, reached such a point that he longed to curb the exercise of individual liberty that he equally longed to maintain." [8]
Cooper argues that the principles of natural justice should be the basis of all governments. Within a democracy, he also claims an increasing need to protect these principles because they are susceptible to the natural selfishness of those in power. [9] In a representative, constitutional republic, like the United States, the United States Constitution acts as a social contract between the states and their leaders. This distinction raises the question of the role of the states, which Cooper believes are sovereign in their own way because they consent to their union under a federal government.
In that sense, political power in the U.S. is a trust granted by the constituent to the representative in deliberate institutions, checking and balancing each other. Therefore, it is imperative for representatives to work within the limits of their respective branches of government. In his view, the American government is at its best when those in power strictly adhere to the system put in place by the Constitution. Thus, in theory, the Constitution provides the necessary restraints on power so that men cannot pursue their own interests.
Along those lines, Cooper proposes that a representative must actually devote himself to the community, representing both the majority and the minority to ensure that the government is for and of the people. [10]
One advantage of this representative democracy is the "general elevation in the character of the people" [11] through equal opportunity. Additionally, with democracy's promotion of "juster [sic] notions of all moral truths ... society is ... a gainer in the greatest element of happiness." [12] Democracy also leads to an increased political stability "because the people [have] legal means in their power to redress wrongs." [13]
Cooper claims that a democracy provides its citizens, who are naturally unequal physically and morally, with equal civil and political rights. These types of rights, however, are not absolute as women, children, and slaves are excluded. Without natural inequality resulting from property rights and inheritance, without which "civilization would become stationary, or, it would recede; the incentives of individuality and of the affections, being absolutely necessary to impel men to endure the labor and privations that alone can advance it." [14] Thus, ultimately "individuality is the aim of political liberty." [15]
To Cooper, liberty was defined as "such a state of the social compact as permits the members of a community to lay no more restraints on themselves, than are required by their real necessities, and obvious interests ... it is a requisite of liberty that the body of a nation should retain the power to modify its institutions, as circumstances shall require." [15] This concept reflects the idea of negative liberty. [16]
It is the role of the citizen to responsibly exercise his God-given right to self-government. Every citizen must also obey the laws and guard the rights of his fellow man. To Cooper, such a human contract and moral obligation is a Divine Truth. Also, the American democrat must keep his representatives in check, constantly questioning their motives and objectively judging policy initiatives in comparison with the constitution, not their own values, prejudices, or opinions. [17] In fact, "the elector who gives his vote, on any grounds, party or personal, to an unworthy candidate, violates a sacred publick duty, and is unfit to be a freeman." [18]
Additionally, the democrat is "one who is willing to admit of a free competition, in all things ... he is the purest democrat who best maintains his right, and no rights can be dearer to a man of cultivation, than exemptions from unseasonable invasions on his time, by the coarse-minded and ignorant." [19]
In his view, the aim of a good government is "to add no unnecessary and artificial aid to the force of its own unavoidable consequences, and to abstain from fortifying and accumulating social inequality as a means of increasing political inequalities." [20] Thus, a good democracy should ensure political and civil equality to all, keeping the members of higher classes from getting more than is constitutionally owed to them. [21] At the time, Cooper argued that there were three factors endangering democracy – public opinion, demagoguery, and the press. He believed that the corruption of these things made political liberty, equality, rights, and justice more abstract notions rather than true pillars of society.
In democracies, "the tyranny of majorities is a greater evil than the oppression of minorities in narrow systems." [22] In that vein, public opinion could become law, making the system liable to "popular impulses" and prejudice. The political party system increases the likelihood of this situation because "when a party rules, the people do not rule, but merely such a portion of the people as can manage to get control of the party". [23]
Cooper claims that
whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to publick [sic] opinion. This is the weak point of our defenses, and the part to which the enemies of the system will direct all their attacks. Opinion can be so perverted as to cause the false to seem true; the enemy, a friend, and the friend, an enemy; the best interests of the nation to appear insignificant and trifle of moment; in a word, the right the wrong and the wrong the right. [24]
Public opinion is the gateway to the other potential destroyers of democracy – the press and the demagogue – because it can be taken advantage of if the public is not critical.
In the end, he argues,
the habit of seeing the publick [sic] rule, is gradually accustoming the American mind to an interference with private rights that is slowly undermining the individuality of the national character. There is getting to be so much publick [sic] right, that private right is overshadowed and lost. A danger exists that the ends of liberty [individuality] will be forgotten altogether in the means. [25]
In the U.S., Cooper argues that the most dangerous abuse of the government is taking advantage of the citizens to gain or maintain authority. [26] Consequently, Cooper disparages the demagogue and political manager who pursue their own interest "by affecting a deep devotion to the interests of the people" and by "put[ting] the people before the constitution and the laws in face of the obvious truth that people have paced the laws before themselves." [27]
While Cooper acknowledged that without a free press there could be no popular liberty in the nation, he also believed that the press was easily corruptible and able to spread inaccurate information at any time. In that sense, "licentiousness, neither publick [sic] honesty, justice, nor a proper regard for character" also infringed upon private liberty. [28] Consequently, it was necessary to hold the press accountable for the information it disseminated.
The current state of the U.S. media was that the press had become an instrument for "the schemes of interested political adventurers." [29] It had evolved from a tool for the free flow of constructive ideas to one of the free flow of false information. The following passage illustrates this perception:
In America, while the contest was for great principles, the press aided in elevating the common character, in improving the common mind, and in maintaining the common interests; but, since the contest has ceased and the struggle has become one purely of selfishness and personal interests, it is employed as a whole, in fast undermining its own work, and in preparing the nation for some terrible reverses, if not in calling down upon it, a just judgment of God. As the press now exists, it would seem to be expressly devised by the great agent of mischief, to depress and destroy all that is good, and to elevate and advance all that is evil in the nation. [30]
Cooper argued that the effects of this free but corrupted press render "men indifferent to character, and, indeed, render[s] character itself of little avail, besides setting up an irresponsible and unprincipled power that is stronger than the government itself." [24]
Around the time of its publication, critics claimed that the book was not at all interesting. [31] Though his arguments were clear and well defended, some thought his writing suffered from "a lofty patriotism" that ended up destroying the value of his argument with "the one-sidedness of view and tendency to over-statement into which his ardor of feeling ... habitually hurried him." [31] Such individuals then argued that in writing The American Democrat, Cooper "was not aiming at popularity; it might not be much out of the way to say that he was aiming at unpopularity." [31]
More contemporary critics, such as Robert E. Long and James Grossman, have argued that The American Democrat represents a complete change in how Cooper approached the American system. In earlier writings, he seemed to write optimistically of the nation's expansive energies. With the publication of The American Democrat and the following works it inspired, he seemed to muse upon the dangers of the system and its downfall. [32] Starting with this work, Cooper's message on America became ominous as he continued to argue that although "political liberty is greater [in the U.S.] than in nearly every other civilized nation, [it is the country] in which men have the least individuality and personal liberty." [33] However, some have argued that in The American Democrat, he never quite unites the dilemma concerning the rising class society, which "politically ... threatens majority rule, because a minority of wealth and talent can always subvert democratic institutions ... [but] socially ... assures 'the utmost practicable personal liberty' by recognizing the right of association of men of like interests and tastes." [33]
Still, others have argued that The American Democrat could have been more influential had it not been overshadowed by Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America , whose first volume had been published internationally in 1835. Critics, such as Stephen Railton, argue that the two political essays approach the same types of subjects and reach very similar conclusions. In fact, both argue that "just because a republic is free from a monarchal ruler does not mean it is free from tyrannical rule," [34] hinting at the notion of tyranny of the majority and the hegemony of public opinion. What kept The American Democrat from being considered part of the discussion in American political theory was that it was "the product of [Cooper's] spleen," [35] coming out of a more biased observation because of the conflicts in which he had been involved. Other critics, such as Wayne Franklin, further this point in claiming that what compelled Cooper to write about the state of the nation was the fact that when he came back from Europe in 1833, he had become "widely discredited as the spokesman for America he had tried to be." [36] In light of the events that personally clouded his view of the country, Cooper then took "a fugitive stance vis-à-vis the public – his public, as he might have asserted a short time earlier." [36] Hence, his alienation, masked by his claim to have been looking at the U.S. with the eyes of a foreigner, colored his discussion of the country. [36]
With these factors in mind, it has been argued that "the work cannot be viewed as it often has been, as Cooper's definitive statement of his political feelings." [37] Ultimately, though, at least one critic has argued that his musings on the state of the nation, "show us ... the true democrat is he who wishes to conserve the republic. In this sense, and in this sense only, can we define Cooper's American as a conservative democrat." [38] Another author writes that Cooper expressed sympathy with "liberal opinions" which he defined as the "generous, manly determination to let all enjoy equal political rights, and to bring those to whom authority is necessarily confided under the control of the community they serve" but rejected the "devices of demagogues" who teach that "the voice of the people is the voice of God." [39]
Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism which advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.
Walter Lippmann was an American writer, reporter, and political commentator. With a career spanning 60 years, he is famous for being among the first to introduce the concept of the Cold War, coining the term "stereotype" in the modern psychological meaning, as well as critiquing media and democracy in his newspaper column and several books, most notably his 1922 Public Opinion.
James Fenimore Cooper was an American writer of the first half of the 19th century, whose historical romances depicting colonial and indigenous characters from the 17th to the 19th centuries brought him fame and fortune. He lived much of his boyhood and the last fifteen years of life in Cooperstown, New York, which was founded by his father William Cooper on property that he owned. Cooper became a member of the Episcopal Church shortly before his death and contributed generously to it. He attended Yale University for three years, where he was a member of the Linonian Society.
In the 1860s, the Copperheads, also known as Peace Democrats, were a faction of the Democratic Party in the Union who opposed the American Civil War and wanted an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates.
The tyranny of the majority is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.
Jacksonian democracy was a 19th-century political philosophy in the United States that expanded suffrage to most white men over the age of 21 and restructured a number of federal institutions. Originating with the seventh U.S. president, Andrew Jackson and his supporters, it became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation. The term itself was in active use by the 1830s.
Jeffersonian democracy, named after its advocate Thomas Jefferson, was one of two dominant political outlooks and movements in the United States from the 1790s to the 1820s. The Jeffersonians were deeply committed to American republicanism, which meant opposition to what they considered to be artificial aristocracy, opposition to corruption, and insistence on virtue, with a priority for the "yeoman farmer", "planters", and the "plain folk". They were antagonistic to the aristocratic elitism of merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, distrusted factory workers, and strongly opposed and were on the watch for supporters of the Westminster system.
On Liberty is an essay by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill. Published in 1859, it applies Mill's ethical system of utilitarianism to society and state. Mill suggests standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He emphasizes the importance of individuality, which he considers prerequisite to the higher pleasures—the summum bonum of utilitarianism. Furthermore, Mill asserts that democratic ideals may result in the tyranny of the majority. Among the standards proposed are Mill's three basic liberties of individuals, his three legitimate objections to government intervention, and his two maxims regarding the relationship of the individual to society.
Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
Benjamin R. Barber was an American political theorist and author, perhaps best known for his 1995 bestseller, Jihad vs. McWorld, and for 2013's If Mayors Ruled the World. His 1984 book of political theory, Strong Democracy, was revised and reissued in 2004. He was an adviser to political leaders including Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and Muammar Gaddafi. He was a board member of the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation.
The values and ideals of republicanism are foundational in the constitution and history of the United States. As the United States constitution prohibits granting titles of nobility, republicanism in this context does not refer to a political movement to abolish such a social class, as it does in countries such as the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. Instead, it refers to the core values that citizenry in a republic have, or ought to have.
Federalist No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison as the tenth of The Federalist Papers, a series of essays initiated by Alexander Hamilton arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. It was first published in The Daily Advertiser on November 22, 1787, under the name "Publius". Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings.
Liberalism in the United States is based on concepts of unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the separation of church and state, the right to due process, and equality before the law are widely accepted as a common foundation of liberalism. It differs from liberalism worldwide because the United States has never had a resident hereditary aristocracy, and avoided much of the class warfare that characterized Europe. According to American philosopher Ian Adams, "all U.S. parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism and the proper role of government."
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights, liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Criticism of democracy has been a key part of democracy and its functions. Democracy has been criticized both by internal critics and external ones who reject the values embraced and nurtured by constitutional democracy.
Liberalism, the belief in freedom, equality, democracy and human rights, is historically associated with thinkers such as John Locke and Montesquieu, and with constitutionally limiting the power of the monarch, affirming parliamentary supremacy, passing the Bill of Rights and establishing the principle of "consent of the governed". The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States founded the nascent republic on liberal principles without the encumbrance of hereditary aristocracy—the declaration stated that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". A few years later, the French Revolution overthrew the hereditary aristocracy, with the slogan "liberty, equality, fraternity" and was the first state in history to grant universal male suffrage. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, first codified in 1789 in France, is a foundational document of both liberalism and human rights, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence written in 1776. The intellectual progress of the Enlightenment, which questioned old traditions about societies and governments, eventually coalesced into powerful revolutionary movements that toppled what the French called the Ancien Régime, the belief in absolute monarchy and established religion, especially in Europe, Latin America and North America.
"Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" is an essay by Mark Twain, written as a satire of literary criticism and as a critique of the writings of the novelist James Fenimore Cooper, that appeared in the July 1895 issue of North American Review. It draws on examples from The Deerslayer and The Pathfinder from Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales.
The Radicalism of the American Revolution is a nonfiction book by historian Gordon S. Wood, published by Vintage Books as a paperback in 1993. The first printing of the hardcover edition notes a publication date of December 1991. In the book, Wood explores the radical character of the American Revolution. The book was awarded the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History.
James Alan Robinson is a British economist and political scientist. He is currently the Reverend Dr. Richard L. Pearson Professor of Global Conflict Studies and University Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago. He also serves as the Institute Director of The Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts at the Harris School. Robinson has previously taught at Harvard University between 2004 and 2015 and also at the University of California, Berkeley, University of Southern California and the University of Melbourne.