TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of April 16, 1870.]

VICTORIA C. WOODHULL ON THE “TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.”

GOD IN CREATION, IN HISTORY, AND IN GOVERNMENT—A PHILOSOPHICAL PREFACE TO A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE.

[The head of the firm of Woodhull, Claflin & Co., Commodore Vanderbilt’s financial proteges—the famous brokers of Broad street—has undertaken the difficult task of correcting popular errors in the science of government, and has prepared a paper on the subject, which, as the lady expects to be too busy to deliver for some time to come, we publish it in extenso. Whether her conclusions will agree with her premises or not, the document will be found exceedingly interesting, as showing the quality of the female mind against which the money changers of Wall street will have to contend in business:]

As far back into the past as dim historic lights enable us to see, and still much farther, even behind the appearance of man upon the face of this planet, the existence of government can be plainly traced. Wherever two or more of any species of animals—not to descend lower and including man—are or have been, something simulating to what is in our day denominated government exists or existed; and, whether it is or was over a greater or less community, it is or was possessed of certain characterizing elements, from and by which a clear insight into the composition of the community can be obtained by those who will 42analyze the elements somewhat philosophically; that is to say governments are truthful reflections of the governed when considered as a whole, and all changes or modifications that occur therein, result from growth of the governed.

No just nor advantageous deductions from any subject or fact which is worthy of a position in the world’s history, and which is capable of permanently maintaining such a position, can be arrived at, except through a complete philosophical analysis of all the elements entering into its composition. All facts as well as all chemical compounds are made up of elementary principles brought into intimate productive relations by some general power, operating by some general law of combination. By such an analysis the composition of such subjects and facts as are analyzed are not only determined, but the relations which they sustain to all other subjects and facts are also demonstrated, and thus a general law of relativity is found which makes the whole round of creation one in purpose and effect.

It is not proposed in the present article to prosecute an exhaustive analysis of government as it is or as it has been, but rather to observe the chain of progression which has been evolved, and to endeavor to determine whether, link by link, it does not form one harmonious whole, from the present aspect of which its culmination may be caught sight of; and whether that culmination will not be found a complete circle, containing within its immense area all that has conspired and assisted in its completion, and which will be entitled to positions in such a community of interests by virtue of having thus conspired and assisted in its formation.

Neither is it proposed to extend the limits of this inquiry beyond the consideration of human government, except in so far as analogies may be sought to enforce the application of general laws and to assist by such application in the solution of such questions as may not be entirely apparent from the evidences contained specifically within the said limits. Philosophically considered, however, the objects sought could as well be obtained from any other department of government; for, while a general law underlies all forms and systems of human government and controls all its modifications, the self-same law underlies and controls all other forms and systems of government, from which human government sprung and upon which it rests as a primary basis.

It is believed that there is sufficient mental development and comprehension contained in the philosophic minds of this latter part of the nineteenth century to gather into form the evidence that has been 43and is being presented, in the evolution and dissolution of government, and grasp its signification, so that in its application to existing things, permanent instead of politic modifications in governmental affairs may be inaugurated. Governed by any other than such a broad standard, changes and modifications in present systems and forms are made simply to meet the exigencies of the times, and with no view to place government upon a basis which should never need modification, and which should meet all exigencies of all times. The reasons why such government has not hitherto been inaugurated or attempted, are, because in no country has the general mind as yet become sufficiently broad and comprehensive to discover that great general laws underlie the universe and govern all its manifestations, applying to each and every department thereof with perfect uniformity. It is not my province to discuss what these great general laws and principles are. I assume that they do exist, and it is my office to predicate what the future of government must be when it shall have its basis in such laws and principles, and to judge whether what has been, and what is, may be considered as gradual approaches from the most simple and homogeneous forms in which the interest of all were very indefinite, either individually or collectively, toward that wherein the interests of all, while becoming more distinct individually, shall be merged in the general interests of the whole and become identical therewith.

Mr. Maine says, in his “Ancient Law,” that “society in ancient times was not what it is assumed to be at present—a collection of individuals. In fact, and in view of the men that composed it, it was an aggregation of families. The contrast may be best and most forcibly expressed by saying that the unit of an ancient society was the family; of a modern society, the individual.”

In speaking of ancient society, Mr. Fiske says: “Family government excluded not only individual independence but also State supremacy; and that vestiges of a time when there were no aggregates of men more extensive than the family may be found in every part of the world, when social organization was but one step removed from absolute and ferocious anarchy;” and this he defines as a social aggregate of the first order; the coalescence of families into civic communities an aggregate of the second order; the coalescence of civic and tribual communities into the nation an aggregate of the third order. The coalescence of nations would then describe an aggregate of the fourth order. Under these four orders all the forms of government which can ever exist in the world must be classified.

44As low a form of government as can be conceived as existing next above that of the family, worthy to be called human government, still exists among the barbarians inhabiting some portions of Central Africa, some of the East India Islands, and perhaps some of the South Sea Islands. These people unite in bands or tribes, and rove about seeking the means of subsistence and endeavoring to conquer other tribes. Some have central points of rendezvous, where the rudest habitations are constructed, in which the women and children remain during the absence of the men. The women almost universally are considered very much in the light of slaves by all these nomadic tribes, and as only fit to minister to their passions and to perform their drudgery. Their language is as rude as their habits, consisting of little more than a comparatively few spasmodically uttered harsh sounds. Written language they have none, excepting perhaps some images or rude figures symbolizing some special event they in this way attempt to commemorate, and which may be considered as the foundation of it for the tribes using them as they were the primary foundation of all written language.

One notable feature is universally observable among all these representatives of primitive government—they all recognize the necessity of a leader under some of the many forms of control exercised by the one over the many, and he is generally one who has exhibited some particular prowess in battle, the capacity to perform which he is supposed to be endowed with by some unknown power, and which renders him superior to all others, and best capable of ruling and protecting those who thus recognize him, and who obey him in every particular, even to sacrificing their lives. Such may be considered an outline of our conceptions of the most primitive form of government of the present day; and the fact that such still exists has a marked bearing upon the subject of general government, when it is remembered that the time was when no higher form existed on the face of the earth.

The law of evolution and that of dissolution being a universal deduction from the philosophic ultimatum that force persists, they apply to all things wherein force is exhibited; consequently human government must be the objective result of the persistence of force exhibited among the people of the earth, and at the same time the subject of all modifications that grow out of its transformations and equivalent relations. In whatever light, then, human government is viewed, these philosophic laws should never be lost sight of nor disregarded; but the causes of all the rises and falls, transformations, modifications 45and amalgamations, should be sought by the application of those laws to the objective points under consideration.

The question now naturally arises, Can human government, then be analyzed, and the facts it presents be found to correspond to the deductions of philosophic law?

It has been remarked that the simplest combinations of force among human beings, representing government which existed when none higher had been attained, was still represented on the earth by certain of its inhabitants. Beginning with this as the basis of the superstructure of human government, can there be traced a gradual scale of progress from it to the government of this country, in which scale each nation, tribe and tongue will find its appropriate place, which, unoccupied, would render the scale imperfect, as a chain would be imperfect were one of its central links missing? and would an analysis of each of these governments develop the fact that each successive one in the progressive scale would represent some new application of the principle of liberty, some more extended idea of equality, or some better formula of justice than the preceding had, which application, idea or formula entitles it to rank superior thereto, and also determines its position in the scale?

Of all systems and forms of government that came and passed away during the long lapse of ages, from the time the most primitive alone existed on the earth to the time wherein those flourished that have left records of their existence, we can know nothing except what may be gathered from philosophic deduction unsupported by any actual record of facts concerning them. It is, however, philosophically certain that very many such intermediate governments did exist, variously modified and advancing from the primitive forms. Possessing, as we may justly infer, but little capability for duration, their integration was rapidly succeeded by disintegration; being exposed to numerous and different external influences, rapid and successive changes were inevitable, because they were possessed of but little individuality and consequently but little capacity for resisting external influences. They were bound together by none of the higher laws of association, but were led by transient ephemeral contingencies, combining at times together, to soon divide and subdivide only to again form new and equally temporary amalgamations. Thus constantly organizing and dissolving, the long interval alluded to was occupied by primitive inhabitants in their march from the purely homogeneous toward the individualized times wherein civilization left records of itself.

46While no special inquiries into the correctness of the formulas laid down at various times by various philosophers, which seek to include and cover all the phenomena of the universe, will be made, those of the most eminent may with propriety be stated; indeed, if it be attempted to show that history obeys a fixed law of evolution, the law that it is presumed to obey must be given, that it may be seen whether the deductions arrived at are included within the limits of the formula. If it should not so turn out, then either the deduction must be illegitimate, the formula imperfect or impossible, or the fact made apparent, that, while all the other sciences, as biology, psychology and their various divisions, are known to conform to certain well determined laws of causation, sociology, in which all history and government find their basis, conforms to no law, but is the product of the merest chance.

Until within the present century it was not claimed by any of the various philosophers who had flourished that there was such a science as sociology; or, if so claimed by any far-seeing mind, the attempt to demonstrate or formulate it was not made until the time of Comte, who, about the year 1830, did attempt it, and he may be justly styled the father of the present system of formulated science. Though his system is now shown to contain many imperfections and omissions, it is nevertheless certain, that but for it, the improvements since made would not have been possible to the present degree attained, though those who have made them may repudiate the idea, and scorn to acknowledge that they have built upon Comte.

Gathering from his profuse writings upon this point his earlier and most continuous opinions, the following are the terms in which they can be the most simply expressed: Social progression is a gradual change from rudimentary, homogeneous and anthropomorphic conditions to civilization, heterogeneity and to definite conceptions of the external world; and at the same time from nomadic characteristics, with aggressive purposes, to inhabitative propensities and individual industrial pursuits.

A number of philosophers, who have written since the days of Comte, have from time to time presented formulas which at best can only be considered as modifications of his, and it may confidently be asserted that no real addition was acquired until the Spencerian was made, which, while it included Comte’s, was more general and comprehensive, and at the same time more definite and special. This seeming anomaly was made possible by his having discovered the law of evolution, and by having exhaustively demonstrated that all mental 47action—emotional as well as intellectual—was included in it. It is as follows: Evolution is an integration of matter and a concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a partial transformation. This general formula includes all evolution, organic and inorganic, and interprets not only the genesis of the sidereal and solar systems and of the earth, but also of life upon the earth, and has become the law of all social, moral and intellectual change. He afterward found it necessary to make a supplement especially applicable to organic life, in such terms as should not include the inorganic. It was as follows: “Life—and intelligence being the highest manifestations of life—consists in the continuous establishment of relations within the organism, in correspondence with relations existing within the environment or the surroundings.”

To this exhaustive statement a late generalization and specialization has been made by Mr. Fiske, especially applicable to social evolution, as follows: The progress of society is a continuous establishment of psychical relations within the community, in conformity to physical and psychical relations arising within the environment, during which, both the community and the environment pass from a state of incoherent homogeneity to a state of coherent heterogeneity, and during which the constitutional units of the community become ever more distinctly individuated.

Having now arrived at that point where history must furnish the facts upon which the subject rests, it may be well to comprehensively recapitulate a perhaps somewhat too long introduction. It was seen that all over the face of the earth where human life was represented, government exists, and that this government was representative of one or another of the three orders of aggregates of individuals—the family, the tribal, or the nations, and that an aggregate of nations would add the fourth order. It was also seen that the evolution of government was the objective result of the persistence of force among its component parts. Fixing the basis of government in this philosophic fact, it was necessary to examine the history of government to see if in its evolution it had conformed to this law, according to present accepted formulas; and if so found to have done, to extend the same into the future, to ascertain if possible what the future would be. Thus by a present understanding of the law and its tendencies, all modifications and changes made in present systems and forms might be so made in harmony 48therewith, and not with a simple view to meet the present exigencies, but with an understanding that would meet all exigencies of all time, which alone is perfect legislation.

THE TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of April 25, 1870.]

SECOND PART OF MRS. VICTORIA C. WOODHULL’S PHILIPPIC—LAWS, PEOPLES AND COMMUNITIES FROM A FEMALE POINT OF VIEW—LESSONS IN HISTORY, POLITICS AND WAR.

[Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull, head of the firm of female brokers in Broad street, presents to the readers of the Herald the following communication, the second part of her paper on “The Tendencies of Government,” the preface to which has already appeared. Mrs. Woodhull has undertaken the difficult task of enlightening the public mind on the best means of running the Government machine of America. Though her views, expressed in this paper, have a wide range, it must be said that she is but putting herself in wind for a tremendous attack on “the best Government the world ever saw.” Being already in the race for the Presidency (not of the Sorosis, but of the United States), her pronunciamentos are of course very important:]

It must begin to be apparent that the proposition is, that the evolution of government does not differ from that of simplest organic forms either in principle or in mode of operation. The same laws that govern the growth and multiply the plant also govern society and multiply it. The same laws that bring fruit to perfection and dissolution perfect and dissolve societies. The same laws that produce and control the units of the animal kingdom produce and control the units of society. The 49same law that governs the ebbing and flowing of the tides, that determines whether the component parts of water shall exist as water or vapor, determines the movements of society and the conditions of its existence; and the same law that produces an earthquake here, a volcanic eruption there or a terrific hurricane elsewhere, produces the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and the hurricanes that are ever modifying and changing society. Symbols of all the various processes society passes through in its growth and extension can be found in every other department of the universe; or, to assert the same fact differently, everywhere in the universe there is a constant effort to attain an equilibrium—a continuous working to supply wants, an unceasing process of demand and supply, which are universal exemplifications of the law that motion is always in the direction of the least resistance or the greatest traction, or the resultant of the two operating conjointly.

But what does history tell of the foundation and dissolution of governments, and what illustrations of the law of progress does it afford? As before stated, those who have most earnestly studied pre-historic time have found ample evidence that the time was when the head of the family was the highest sovereign power, and so absolute in its character that the individual was entirely submerged in it, and State supremacy was an impossibility. Nothing but anarchy and confusion could have attended such rule; constant rivalry, jealousy and contention must have kept up a continual strife between adjacent families, which could know no settlement except through the subjugation or destruction of the weaker of the contending parties. Of this order of governmental aggregations, it is questionable if the earth at present furnishes any illustrations, unless it be in some part thereof to which the discoverer has not yet penetrated. Of the next, or tribal, order of aggregates, it does, however; and with this second order the real analysis and comparison must begin, though we have no objective means of demonstrating the conditions stated as existing. When family sovereignty was universal it can readily be seen that the continued existence of such conditions would be impossible, for the continuous subjugations and amalgamations of families would lead directly to tribal communities, at first in absolute subjection to one tribe, which would grow into some power, distributed among the several tribes. So also would the joining together of several weak families to resist a more powerful neighbor lead directly to confederation.

The subjugation and reduction of families to bondage and slavery was the beginning of that system of interdependence now so broadly 50extended into commerce, exchange and mutual dependence for almost the necessities of life. In the times referred to every man was his own farmer, tailor, carpenter and cook, and this condition was only modified when the individuals of conquering families began to rely upon the conquered for certain services they otherwise would have been obliged to render themselves. All of these facts exemplify another philosophic proposition—that for anything in the universe to remain in its homogeneous condition is impossible, which impossibility is the result of the fact that motion must produce change, while constant motion is inevitable so long as force persists and matter resists.

That eminent historian of the third decade of the eighteenth century, Rollin, thus remarks of the earliest monuments which are preserved, treating of the progress from simple to complex forms of government:—“To know in what manner the states and kingdoms were founded that have divided the universe, the steps whereby they rose to that pitch of grandeur related in history, by what ties families and cities united in order to constitute one body of society, and to live together under the same laws and common authority, it will be necessary to trace things back in a manner to the infancy of the world and to those ages in which mankind, being dispersed into different regions, began to people the earth.” In these early ages every father was the supreme head of his family; the arbiter and judge of whatever contests and divisions might arise within it; the natural legislator over his little society, the defender and protector of those who, by their birth, education and weakness, were under his protection and safeguard. The laws which the paternal vigilance established in this domestic senate being dictated with no other view than to promote the general welfare, were concerted with such children as were come to years of maturity and accepted by the inferiors with a full and free consent, were religiously kept and preserved in families as an hereditary polity, to which they owed their peace and security.

But different motives gave rise to different laws. One man, overjoyed at the birth of a first born son, resolved to distinguish him from future children by bestowing on him a more considerable share of his possessions, and giving him greater authority in his family. Another, more attentive to the interests of a beloved wife or darling daughter, whom he wanted to settle in the world, thought it incumbent on him to secure her rights and increase her advantages. The solitary and cheerless state a wife might be reduced to in case she should become a widow affected more intimately another man, and made him provide 51beforehand for the subsistence and comfort of a woman who formed his felicity. In proportion as every family increased by the birth of children and their marrying into other families, they extended their domain, and by insensible degrees formed towns and cities. From these different views and others of a like nature arose the different customs and rights of nations.

These societies growing in time very numerous, and the families, dividing into different branches, each having its head, it was necessary to intrust one person with the whole in order to unite all these heads under one authority and to maintain the public good by a uniform administration. To heighten the lustre of this newly acquired dignity and to cause them to devote themselves entirely to the public good, the title of king was bestowed upon them and they were invested with full power to administer justice and to punish crime.

At first every city had its particular king, who, being more solicitous of preserving his dominion than of enlarging it, confined his ambition within its limits But the unavoidable feuds that break out between neighbors, the jealousy against a more powerful rival, the turbulent spirit of a prince, his martial disposition or thirst for aggrandizing himself and displaying his ability, gave rise to wars which frequently ended in the entire subjugation of the vanquished and the addition of their cities to the victors. Thus a first victory led the way to a second, which, making a prince more powerful and enterprising, several cities and provinces became united under one monarch, forming kingdoms of greater or less extent, according to the degree the victor pushed his conquests. Such was the origin of the famous empires that at times included the greater part of the known world.

From various historical authorities the following summaries of history are obtained, and are presented as containing some of the principal points by which the general progress of the world should be judged. The principal empires of ancient time will be observed separately; those of modern time under one head, because of the more connected character of their histories, and because of the more general knowledge that is possessed of them. Then the general course events took will be noticed, the deductions that legitimately flow from them introduced, and the bearing they have upon present affairs of the world in reference to its future condition of government considered.

There are several nations that have, at various times, and that still do claim, the greatest antiquity. The Chinese, the Indians, the Syrians and Egyptians appear to have the most evidence to support their claim. 52The Egyptians once accorded it to the Phrygians, through the result of the somewhat singular experiment of confining two children away from all intercourse with the world until they began to cry, “Beecos,” which was found to be the Phrygian word for bread. This word, Psammetichus, the King decided must be of the original language, and consequently that the Phrygians were the original people.

Manetho, a high priest in Egypt, who had charge of the sacred archives, pretends to have extracted from the writings of Mercurius and to have proved thereby that up to the time of Alexander the Great, whose reign began 356 years B. C., there had been thirty dynasties in Egypt, which together covered a space of more than 5,300 years. If this claim be allowed, Egypt has existed 7,500 years. Herodotus says “that the Egyptian priests computed 341 generations until the reign of Sethon,” which began 719 years B. C. “These generations,” he adds, “make 11,341 years.” They also counted a like number of priests and kings, who had succeeded one another without interruption, under the name of “Pyromas,” signifying good and virtuous. These priests hewed 341 colossal statues in wood of these Pyromas, all arranged in a large hall in the order of their succession.

Let these claims be false or true, historians unanimously agree that Menes was the first King of Egypt, and that his reign began 2,188 years B. C., which would make its historic age about 5,000 years; undoubtedly its fabulous age would cover a sufficient period to make what is claimed, at least by Menetho, if not by the priests Herodotus mentions. These claims will seem the more probable when we are informed that a few ages only after Menes, the first King, one Busiris, built the famous city of Thebes, and made it the seat of his empire, which would seem to indicate that the arts and sciences had at that time been carried to a considerable degree of perfection, not only in the building of cities, but also in their adornment; for we are told that the public buildings were decorated with sculptures and paintings of the most exquisite beauty.

Additional force is also given these claims by the fact that Osymandyas, the successor of this Busiris, collected a magnificent library at Thebes, called “The Treasury of Remedies for Diseases of the Soul,” which would indicate that polite learning had made considerable advancement as well in philosophy as in religion. Historians also inform us that Cham, the father of Misriam—the same with Menes—was the second son of Noah, and it is supposed that he retired into Africa after the “confusion of tongues.” He was doubtless the Jupiter Ammont 53so long worshiped as a god by the Egyptians. We are also informed that this Cham, or Ham, had three other sons—Chus, who settled Ethiopia; Phut, who settled Africa westward from Egypt, and Canaan in the country that afterward was called after him, and whose descendants were called Phœnicians.

When we remember the so-called flood; that Cham was the second son of Noah and the father of Menes, the first king, 2,189 years B. C., and that 200 years later Osymandyas, one of his successors, was able to fit out an expedition against the Bactrians of Asia, consisting of 400,000 foot and 20,000 horse, it must be conceded that if the “flood” destroyed all the people existing on the face of the earth, except those saved in the ark, the descendants of Cham must have multiplied with inconceivable rapidity to have made the collecting of such an army possible. But this is not more astonishing than the supposition would be that there could be contained in the atmosphere surrounding the earth sufficient moisture to form the amount of water, which, falling through a space of forty days and nights, should cover the whole earth to the depth narrated of Noah’s flood; nor more so than that the temperature of the whole earth at that time should have been so uniform as to have permitted rain throughout, instead of hail or snow, in frigid portions thereof. And if we were to inquire where such a quantity of water was borrowed from and returned, a consistent reply would be equally surprising; for it is now known that there is just as large a quantity of the elements that compose water at present as there was then.

Considerable latitude can be allowed the statements regarding the flood, when it is remembered that the knowledge of geography, astronomy and meteorology must have been exceedingly limited at that time. But if credence is given to it as having occurred—and it is conceded that all the people Noah knew were destroyed by it—and a solution is sought, it can be imagined that a tremendous upheaval of mountains in Northern Asia might have thrown the waters of the Arctic Ocean southward over the country Noah dwelt in; but this could not have been the result of forty days and forty nights rain, though it may have rained continuously during that period, and may have been considered such by Noah.

This digression was not made so much to consider the probabilities of a flood having occurred as to give additional force to the historic fact that but a few generations after it is said to have occurred, immense tribes of people did exist in that portion of the world bordering 54on the eastern Mediterranean Sea, who were possessed of considerable general knowledge, immense wealth, and, for that age, good ideas of governmental justice; besides these people, it must also be remembered vast hosts of barbarians existed in the more remote parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, of whose origin and condition nothing can be positively known, either of which bodies of people could not have descended from Noah’s family through the common course of reproduction.

What concerns this inquiry most, is not whether all or any of the narratives of ancient writers are entitled to credence, but how and in what directions the ancient tribal nations extended themselves and became merged one with another. Following the history of Egypt from the time of Menes through the reigns of his successors—Busiris, Osymandyas (whose mausoleum displayed such extravagant magnificence), and Euchoreus, who built the famous Memphis and made it the key to the Nile—on through the space of two hundred and sixty years of the Shepherd Kings, from Phœnicia to Amosis, who expelled them, and reunited the country, and to Sesostris, the most powerful king and the greatest conqueror the world had then known, but little evidence of increasing proficiency in science and art is found, but much that the acquired standard was continually being extended among the people and among surrounding nations.

With the reign of Sesostris a new era was inaugurated, and a mighty impetus to general civilization, as well as to special advancement, was given by his wisdom and foresight. Amenophis, the father of Sesostris, no doubt feeling the weight of impending events, foresaw the necessity of preparing him to meet them. He not only took great care that his education in the arts and sciences, the principles of government, philosophy and the art of war, should be complete, but also caused all male children of Egypt born the same day he was, to be educated with him, with the distinct understanding that they were to be his future comrades, his officers, ministers and friends in the aggressive wars he intended he should engage in when he should ascend the throne. It is said that the celebrated Mercurius had charge over them all, especially in politics, war and government.

The first war Sesostris engaged in was against the Arabs, which his father sent him upon while yet quite young, that he might acquire practical knowledge in conducting military campaigns. This people, who had never before been subdued, he conquered, and added their country to Egypt The next year he invaded Lybia, a country to the southwest of Egypt. During this expedition his father died, leaving 55the throne to him. He immediately formed a no less design than of conquering the whole world. This was in 1491 B. C., and he was probably the first of the great conquerors of ancient times who conceived the idea of reducing the world to a single form of government, and most assuredly the first possessed of sufficient wisdom to carry out so gigantic an undertaking. The manner he set about to do this, and the capacity he evinced in all the preparations, we shall have occasion to compare hereafter with that pursued and shown by others in after time, simply remarking here that it is safe to conclude that Sesostris was great among the greatest; for, to boundless ambition—possessed by many—he united the capacity to sustain it, which few can boast. While making the most extensive preparations for raising and disciplining armies for foreign operations, he was not less active in providing for sustaining the dignity and power of his Government during his absence, which he foresaw would give opportunity for rivals to attempt to overthrow for their own benefit. His first army consisted of 600,000 foot, 24,000 horse, and 27,000 armed chariots, and its principal officers were the 1,700 youths who had been educated with him, and who now made it possible for him to secure perfect discipline and the greatest efficiency.

With this army he first invaded and conquered Ethiopia, and made it tributary to Egypt. He next fitted out an expedition of 400 sail, and made himself master of all the islands and coasts of the Red Sea, as a preparatory step to the conquest of Asia, then advanced into Asia, subduing all the countries, even “beyond the Ganges.” Returning westward, he conquered Scythia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Colchis, and all Asia Minor: then crossed into Europe, and would probably have subdued all its nations had he not encountered a great scarcity of provisions in Thrace, which caused him to return. Herodotus says that the Egyptian Empire extended from the Danube even beyond the Ganges, and included all of Africa, and that all over this vast territory there were erected pillars, on which was inscribed “Sesostris, king of kings and lord of lords, subdued this country by the power of his arms;” which, while it displayed a commendable spirit in marking the limits of his conquest, it at the same time evinces a growing personal vanity that afterward seriously tarnished his early fame.

After having thus conquered the then entire known world, Sesostris returned to Egypt with innumerable captives and laden with spoils, and, by devoting himself to enriching and benefiting Egypt, rather than to extending his dominions, fame and grandeur, showed that his ambition 56had expended itself in his first great campaign. From all that can be gathered of his reign over Egypt, it must be inferred that no country before, if since, was ever more happily disposed toward its sovereign. The many monuments of his greatness, throughout his dominions, were covered with inscriptions, asserting that all Sesostris’ mighty deeds were accomplished without burdening his subjects; but, on the contrary, they all had become able, through them, to pass the remainder of their days in “calm and repose.”

Having subdued so much of the world, had he been equally ambitious to extend over it the same beneficent Government that he held over Egypt—which he could easily have done through the numerous competent persons the foresight of Amenophis had provided him with, who were well versed in his policy and administration of affairs—Sesostris would undoubtedly have earned and been entitled to the appellation of the world’s benefactor. It appears, however, that he did not exert himself at all in this direction, but was content to receive the annual tributes he levied to enrich Egypt proper. His reasons for pursuing this course, rather than of endeavoring to reward his most worthy adherents by making them rulers of the countries they had assisted him to conquer, are incomprehensible, and that they should not have urged him to it equally so. When it is considered how wisely and happily he governed Egypt, it can be imagined how vastly he might have benefited the conquered people by diffusing correct knowledge of the art of government among them through extending his rule over them.

As it was, it came about, that various Egyptian colonies scattered here and there over the conquered country, and in this way were instrumental in spreading the wisdom of their nation. It was one of these colonies that afterward became the famous Athens—the seat of learning, literature and philosophy. It was about this time also that the use of letters was introduced by one Cadmus, whom the Egyptians claimed to be of their country; but the majority of writers agree that they originated in Syria, and that they were identical with the Hebraic. Of these, however, there were but sixteen, four others being added some two hundred and fifty years later, and the remaining four a long time afterward.

The reign of Sesostris may justly be considered as having produced more general and extended influence upon the world than that of any of his ancestors of any country, and that nothing occurred that can hold any degree of comparison to it until the time of Alexander, more than a thousand years afterward. Sesostris was succeeded by 57Pheron, and he by Proteus, who dedicated the beautiful temple to “Venus the Stranger,” supposed to be “Helen of Troy,” famous for her beauty, and who was stolen by Paris, from whom she was taken by Proteus and returned to the Greeks.

Under succeeding reigns, the glory of Egypt began to decline, violence and cruelty to usurp the places where justice and moderation had so long prevailed, and jealousies, petty malice and personal aggrandizement to take the place of that love of country which is superior to self; nor could aught else have been expected from the ill-advised luxury and ease the country obtained under Sesostris, which should have been converted into action and expended upon tributary nations. The downward tendency, or the disintegrating process, having begun, demonstrated that the principle upon which Egypt rose and flourished had culminated, and was now to be disseminated among other nations and tribes. Nor could any effort of succeeding rulers, who saw the process at work and understood the causes thereof, stop the downward tendency, which continued with but temporary interruptions until the death of Tharaca, 687 years B. C., when the kingdom remained in a state of anarchy, until twelve noblemen conspired to divide it among themselves. For some superstitious reasons Psammetichus, one of the twelve, was banished; but he, entering into a league with some Greeks, made war upon the eleven, defeated them, and again united the kingdom under one rule, and remained sole possessor of it until his death.

Six hundred and sixteen years B. C. one Nechos arose, who attempted the cutting of a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, but was unsuccessful. This, however, was partly atoned for by the accomplishment of a voyage entirely around the coast of Africa by some skilful Phœnician sailors he employed, they leaving Egypt by the Red Sea and returning by the way of the Mediterranean after an absence of three years. This passage was made some 2,000 years before the Portuguese discovered this way to the Indies, by which these Phœnicians were able to enter the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar.

Trouble after trouble now distracted the kingdom, and its power and influence declined with every reign, until the Persians, under Cambyses, 525 years B. C., subdued it. Since the downfall of the Persian Empire, Egypt has successively been subject to the Macedonians, Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and lastly the Turks, by whom it is now nominally possessed. The late accomplishment of the project Nechos 58failed in may be prophetic of radical changes in the condition Egypt has so long been submerged in—the indications being favorable for a return to considerable importance among the nations of the earth.

THE TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of May 2d, 1870.]

MRS. WOODHULL’S THIRD LETTER.

Nearly all historians who have written since Josephus have endeavored to reconcile sacred and profane history. This task Rollin attempts regarding the origin of the Assyrian empire. Diodorus says that “Ninus, the most ancient Assyrian king, performed great actions. Being naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of glory which results from valor, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave and vigorous, like himself, and trained them to all manner of hardships.” This Ninus, Rollin endeavors to make it appear, was the Nimrod of the Scriptures, and the Belus who was afterward worshiped as a god. Calisthenes, a philosopher, who was one of the retinue of Alexander the Great, says the Babylonians reckoned their origin back some 115 years after the Deluge, which would be about 2,250 years B. C. The conflict of authority upon the origin of this empire, renders it competent for our purpose to assume this date, and that Nimrod was the first historic king of Assyria.

Assyria is supposed to have derived its name from Asshur, the son of Shem, who, the Scripture says, settled this country. Nimrod possessed himself of the province, introduced his own subjects into it, built cities and made himself generally beloved. It is said he built Nineveh, more grand and magnificent than all the rest, and named it 59after his son Ninus, who, on his accession to the throne, conceived the design of extending his conquests, and began to prepare troops and officers capable of carrying it out. In seventeen years he conquered all the country between Egypt, India and Bactriana, which last country he did not think himself strong enough to attack with success.

While preparing for further and greater conquests he also determined to immortalize his name by making of Nineveh a city at once commensurate with his power and wealth. His design, says Diodorus, was “to make it the largest and noblest city in the world, and to put it beyond the power of others who might come after him to ever build another such. Nor,” as Rollin adds, “was he deceived in this; for never did any city come up to the greatness and magnificence of this.” It was eighteen miles and three-quarters long and eleven miles and one-quarter broad, and was surrounded by a wall one hundred feet high.

Having completed Nineveh he pursued his intended campaign against the Bactrians, into whose country he marched an army of 1,700,000 foot, 200,000 horse and 20,000 chariots, armed with scythes. With this vast array he quickly overran the whole country and finally laid siege to its capital. This city was strongly fortified and stoutly defended, so much so that Ninus began to despair of reducing it, when the wife of one of his officers advised him how to attack its citadels so as to capture them, and by them the city. This woman was the afterward celebrated Semiramis. Ninus made use of her advice, and the city fell into his hands with but little loss to him.

Ninus, finding a woman possessed of such remarkable capacity to aid him in his ambitious designs, at once conceived for Semiramis the most violent passion. Her husband, upon hearing this, killed himself to escape the fury of Ninus. Having married her, he not long after died—some assert by her connivance—and left the kingdom to her.

It was Semiramis who undertook the building of the mighty Babylon, in which work she employed two million men. Dr. Prideaux tells us the walls around Babylon were three hundred and fifty feet high and eighty feet thick, and that it contained six hundred and seventy-six squares two miles and a quarter in circumference. His description of the walls, the quays and bridges, lakes, ditches, canals, palaces, hanging-gardens and temple of Belus presents a picture of grandeur and magnificence unknown in this age. Diodorus also says even in his time there were many monuments of grandeur still standing bearing the name of Semiramis.

60This beautiful and extraordinary woman possessed the most marvelous control over all she came in contact with. Her simple presence was sufficient to quell any tumult or mutinous proceeding. Not satisfied with the immense possessions left her by Ninus, she conquered Ethiopia and the larger part of Africa. Not yet content, she determined upon the subjugation of India, against which she set out with 3,000,000 foot, 500,000 horse and a multitude of camels, with which she thought to make head against the Indian elephants. After she had successfully crossed the river Indus the Indian King fell upon her army, with his elephants, with such fury that it was utterly routed. Semiramis was by this defeat compelled to give over the conquest of India. Having reigned forty-two years she resigned the throne to Ninyas, her son, whom she discovered was plotting against her life, as the Jupiter Ammon of Egypt had told her years before he would. She retired from the sight of men, hoping speedily to have divine honors granted her name, which was also prophesied for her by the Egyptian god.

Of these vast armies, which predicate still more vast population, Rollin remarks: “I must own I am somewhat puzzled with a difficulty which may be raised against the extraordinary things related of Ninus and Semiramis, as they do not seem to agree with the times so near the deluge; I mean such vast armies; such a numerous cavalry; so many chariots armed with scythes; such immense treasures of silver and gold, and the magnificence of the buildings. The temple of Belus alone contained more than twenty millions pounds sterling hoarded treasure.” Rollin argues that the Greek historians, from whom he compiled, must have fallen into some grave errors, since, that such things should have occurred so soon after the deluge, presupposes what must have been beyond the range of possibility.

The Assyrian empire, having attained the zenith of power and magnificence under Semiramis, began to sink into a gradual decay, the kings themselves setting the example of indolence and dissipation. This process of decay continued until the time of Sardanapalus, about 700 years B. C. He surpassed all his predecessors in effeminacy, cowardice and licentious luxury, and abandoned himself completely to pleasure, wine and women; even dressing and painting his cheeks as the women did. It seems strange that a people so used to glory and conquest should not have sooner revolted against such debauchery and dissoluteness. This was left for one Arbaces to do; he obtained entrance to the King’s palace, and with his own eyes witnessed 61the truth of the reports about the King. Arbaces at once began to incite rebellion; by his reports he gained over the governors of several provinces, who raised an army and marched against the King, whom they succeeded in shutting up in the city of Nineveh. The King considered Nineveh impregnable, but the river Tigris suddenly rose to a great height and broke down some portions of the walls of the city, which admitted the troops of the rebellious governors. Sardanapalus then proceeded to burn himself, his women and treasure, which latter, according to Atheneus, amounted to “a thousand myriads of talents of gold and ten times as much silver, each myriad of which was of the value of $7,000,000.” Such treasure we in this age know nothing of. After the death of Sardanapalus the empire was dismembered, and the kingdoms of Babylon, Nineveh and Medea formed from its ruins. Between these there was constant warfare waged. During the time of Cyazares a horde of Scythian barbarians devastated the three kingdoms, remaining their masters until the people disposed of them by a general stratagem—slaughtering them while drunk with wine, at feasts to which, by concert, each family of Assyrians had invited them upon an agreed day. Such as escaped this, fled the country. Cyazares, after repeated efforts, succeeded in utterly destroying Nineveh, the last city that held out against him, and with the aid of his nephew, Cyrus, united the three kingdoms again under one government, which was the beginning of the famous empire of the Medes and Persians.

Crœsus, King of Lydia, is here entitled to a slight digressive reference on account of the influence he at this time exercised. Vast riches in most kingdoms had led to indolence, effeminacy and licentiousness; but Crœsus thought it unworthy for any person, much less a king, to surrender himself to these. Not only was he vastly rich, and an extraordinary conqueror, but his chief delight consisted in literature and science; he patronized the learned and wise of all nations; so much so that they all made particular effort to visit his dominions to receive his assistance. His court was the ordinary residence of the seven wise men of Greece. It was with him that Æsop, the author of the Fables, flourished. The possession of these characteristics entitle Crœsus to most honorable mention and memory, and he should be regarded as a representative king.

It will be remembered that Cyrus was the first king of Persia, which by conquest he enlarged until it comprised all the territory between the Tigris and Indus, the Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean. His uncle, Cyazares, 62retained Medea. He, finding himself involved in a terrible war with the kings of several provinces—among whom was Crœsus of Lidya—sent to Cyrus for aid, who set out at once with an army. The vast preparations made on both sides culminated in the battle of Thimbra—one of the most remarkable events of ancient times—which decided the empire of Asia against the Assyrians and in favor of the Persians. This battle has always been the study of great commanders, because the military genius there displayed by Cyrus makes him rank as one of the greatest of generals. After reducing all the smaller nations of Asia Minor, Cyrus turned his whole power against Babylon, which he determined upon destroying. He accomplished its capture by emptying the river Euphrates into the vast ditches prepared by Semiramis, and marching his army over its dry bed into the city at night, while its inhabitants were engaged in some general entertainment. Thus the mighty city built by Semiramis fell, and the destruction ceased not, until not even its walls remained to tell the story of its grandeur.

With the reunion of what constituted the first Assyrian empire, the conquests of Cyrus seem to have ceased. He turned his whole attention to perfecting a system of government for the vast country he had acquired. This he accomplished most wisely. All historians agree that in this task he was greatly aided by the wisdom and counsel of Daniel the Prophet, who obtained a position of great power and influence. It was no doubt he who obtained from Cyrus the famous decree regarding the Babylonish captivity of the Jews. So prosperous and happy did the empire become under the reign of Cyrus, that historians affirm “that after his death he was universally regarded as the common father of the people.” Having reigned seventy years he died 529 years B. C., leaving the empire to Cambyses, his son, who was as great in crime as his father had been in virtue. He caused the death of his only brother, Smerdis, married his youngest sister (who was very beautiful), and afterward killed her because she lamented the death of Smerdis. Happily his reign was cut short by death, having lasted less than eight years.

It was not generally known that Cambyses had caused the death of his brother Smerdis, which made it possible for Smerdis the magician to usurp the throne, giving out that he was the true Smerdis. He was exposed by one of his wives, at the instance of a nobleman named Darius, who managed to slay him, and was then unanimously named king, by his brother noblemen, for having done so. Soon after becoming king, Darius, with an army of 1,000,000 men, marched into Europe 63to chastise the Scythians for having overrun Assyria in the time of Cyazares. The expedition resulted disastrously to Darius, who could not even bring the Scythians to battle. They continually retired before him, and left him to be defeated by the scarcity of provisions, from which cause Darius came near losing his whole army, and was obliged to beat a hasty retreat to his own country. Darius then determined upon the conquest of India, which he accomplished. Of the particulars of this campaign no records are left, though it is known that India remained a Persian province many years, and paid annual tributes of £50,0000 sterling. Darius was the only conqueror who ever subjugated India sufficiently to reduce it to a tributary province; it made the twentieth that had been added to Persia.

During the reign of Darius, the Ionians revolted against Persian control, and succeeded in involving the Athenians with them; they furnished the Ionians twenty ships, by the aid of which Sardis was captured and burned. This so enraged Darius that he formed a solemn resolve to destroy Greece. Thus began that implacable strife of the Persians against the Grecians, by which Persian power was almost destroyed, and in which the Greeks performed the most remarkable exploits known in military history. These, coming more properly under Grecian summary, it will only be remarked here that Miltiades on the plains of Marathon, Leonidas at Thermopylæ, Themistocles at Salamis, Aristides at Plateæ, Leotychides at Mycale, and Simon at Eurymedon, taught the Persian monarchs that they were not to be subdued by them, though they should expend their mightiest power in their attempts.

So exhausted was the empire from the Grecian wars, that when the Egyptians revolted during the reign of Darius II. he found himself unable to subdue them. The superb empire made and left by Cyrus the Great under such admirable government was now becoming thoroughly corrupted and debauched, and was given to all species of licentiousness. Its former glory rapidly departed, and the elements of destruction were actively at work preparing it for the blow Alexander of Macedon was soon to deal it, from which it was destined never to recover.

After the dismemberment of the Macedonian Empire, Persia in part recovered, but became the field for constant barbarian inroads, which kept the kingdom in poverty and misery. Under Chosron, about the year 600, the empire again extended from the Indus to the Mediterranean. Justinian I. waged a successful war against Chosron, and compelled 64a disadvantageous peace. This was annulled by Chosron II., who again raised Persia to her former greatness by conquering Egypt, Ethiopia, Lydia and Yemen. These sudden conquests were soon lost, and the partially resuscitated empire passed into a rapid decline. At no time since has Persia exerted any considerable influence upon surrounding nations. Under Timour, in the fourteenth century, and the Turks in the fifteenth, it decayed rapidly; in the sixteenth century it became nearly extinct, and, as a nation, it remains virtually so to this day.

THE TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of May 9, 1870.]

VICTORIA C. WOODHULL’S FOURTH PAPER—A RETROSPECT OF ANCIENT GRECIAN AND ROMAN HISTORY.

[Below we present the fourth subdivision of Mrs. Woodhull’s treatise on “The Tendencies of Government,” from which it will be perceived that the lady has delved deep into the mines of governmental lore, and is vigorously training for the Presidential sweepstakes of 1872:]

Regarding the earliest traditions of Greece, it can be said they are less indefinite than those of Egypt or Assyria. No country of antiquity can be reverted to with more admiration and respect than this. In whatever light her history is considered, illustrious examples of true greatness abound. If her military career be reviewed, where can more glory be found to have been achieved? If her government be examined, where has greater wisdom and moderation ever been exercised? If the comparative advancement of science, literature, art and philosophy made within her domain be appealed to, where has greater proficiency 65ever been attained? If the personal characteristics of her great men be analyzed, where has patriotism ever risen to so sublime a degree? In many respects Greece may be considered the school-house of the world, wherein it has been taught the rudimentary principles of knowledge, especially that species of knowledge that conduces to the development of wisdom.

The territory of ancient Greece was by no means the Greece of to-day, but embraced all that country lying southward from Illyria and Thrace, now forming a part of Turkey in Europe. It then consisted of the provinces of Epirus, Peloponnesus, Greece proper, Thessaly and Macedonia, besides many islands in the Ægean Sea. The earliest inhabitants of Greece of whom anything is known were the Pelasgi, who “knew no other law than force, were ignorant even of agriculture, and fed on roots and herbs.” A people called the Hellenes, from Asia, mingled with them, and their common name became Greeks, from Græcus, the son of Pelasgus. Although Greece was afterward the seat of so much knowledge and wisdom, it does not appear that these originated among the descendants of its original inhabitants, but that they sprung from the Phœnecian and Egyptian colonies that from various causes found their way into Greece.

Of the constant internal strife carried on between the several Grecian provinces no mention will be made. The first of these to arise was Sicyon, followed by Argos, Mycenæ, Athens, Sparta, Corinth and Macedon. When the population of any of these became large, it was the custom to send out colonies, thus distributing Grecian influence, instead of by war. The powerful cities of Rhegium, Syracuse, Sybaris, Crotona, Tarentum, Gela, Locris, Messina, Marseilles and Agrigentum, were formed from such colonies. For the space of a thousand years, or until 520 years B. C., the Grecians appear to have confined their operations within their own dominions. Being continually engaged in war with each other, they had no opportunity of carrying on aggressive warfare—this was never a Grecian characteristic, though so forcibly illustrated by Alexander of Macedon, and by Cimon and Agesilaus, for retaliation rather than aggression.

It is to be specially observed as illustrating the part Greece performed in the general advancement and diffusion of civilization that while all other great nations were made so by aggressive conquests, Greece rarely ever made war except in self-defence. The influence other nations had upon the world was gained by conquering contiguous countries. The influence Greece exercised was by diffusing among 66other nations the principles of science, philosophy and government and by commercial intercourse. Thus it is found that up to the time of the first Persian invasion there had been no concentration of the military forces of the several provinces, except as they had taken sides against each other in their feudal wars.

The Persian attempt to subjugate Greece was most unpropitious from the very onset. Mardonius marched a large army into the very heart of Greece, with scarcely any opposition; but his fleet, in approaching the coast of Macedon, encountered a storm, and was destroyed. Meanwhile, Mardonius took no pains to encamp his vast army in a place or form of security. A mere band of Thracians, taking advantage of this, fell upon the Persians in the night, and completely routed the whole army. This double defeat, by such unexpected means, caused Mardonius to return quickly into Asia.

Nothing daunted by this defeat, which he attributed to the inexperience of Mardonius, Darius dispatched another army, consisting of 500,000 men and 600 ships. The fleet first captured Eretrea, while the army caused such consternation in Greece that only Sparta, of all the provinces, responded to the Athenian call for succor. The Spartan troops, even, did not arrive in time to participate in the battle of Marathon, where Miltiades, with 10,000 Athenians, completely routed the whole Persian army. This victory gained by the Greeks over an army outnumbering theirs nearly twenty times, was, no doubt, the inspiring cause by which all succeeding victories over the Persians were gained. It taught the Greeks that a few determined men, fighting in defence of their country, were mightier than a multitude with no such incentive. Through the course of succeeding ages the Grecians exhibited a noble emulation of, and desire to imitate, if not excel, their ancestors, who fought and conquered at Marathon.

Xerxes, the successor of Darius, persisting in his determination to destroy Greece, crossed the Hellespont on a “bridge of boats,” with an army of 1,700,000 and 80,000 horse, to which submitting countries added 300,000, so that he appeared before the pass of Thermopylæ with 2,000,000 men. Against this force Leonidas opposed 12,000 Spartans and allies. The whole power of the Athenians had been turned into preparations for naval warfare, which, as the sequel showed, was the salvation of Greece. The manner in which Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defended Thermopylæ, still further raised the determination of the Greeks to resist after the same fashion all movements of the invaders. On the same day as the battle of Thermopylæ a great, 67though indecisive, naval battle was fought at Artemesium. Xerxes advanced upon, captured and burned Athens. The fate of Greece seemed decided; but the great naval battle of Salamis entirely changed the face of affairs. Xerxes being secretly informed that it was the intention of Themistocles to proceed with the Athenian fleet and destroy his “bridge” across the Hellespont, precipitately abandoned Greece, leaving Mardonius with 300,000 men and instructions to subdue Greece “if he was able.” At the battle of Platæa, which soon followed, Mardonius was completely defeated, and the same day the remainder of the Persian fleet was destroyed at Mycale.

Having thus rid themselves of the Persians the Athenians set about to rebuild their city. The Spartans, fearing Athens would gain great naval superiority over them, opposed it; thus the Grecians were no sooner rid of a common foe than strife broke out among themselves. This tendency arose from the process of individualization and is specially illustrative of the progress of evolution. Athens was rebuilt, and, as the Spartans feared, soon exceeded all other States in power and splendor. Athens also became the centre of the arts and sciences, knowledge of which was at this time rapidly developed. Sparta, no longer able to endure the overbearing pride of Athens, brought on the Peloponnesian war. This war devastated Greece and enslaved Athens. Sparta in turn was compelled to yield to Epaminondas, the Theban. In spite of this terrible war, poets, philosophers, artists and statesmen continued to arise, commerce flourished and the customs of the people were raised to the highest degree of perfection.

But a time of unhappiness soon came upon this too prosperous condition. Philip of Macedon, bold and cunning, took advantage of the dissensions that at all times prevailed, and by a sudden coup de main thought to make himself master of all Greece. It can be asserted that not Greece, but one man, for forty-eight years continually frustrated the designs of Philip, who himself said, “The eloquence of Demosthenes did me more harm than all the armies and fleets of the Athenians. His harangues are like machines of war and batteries raised at a distance, by which all my projects and enterprises are ruined. Had I been present and heard that vehement orator declaim I should have been the first to conclude that it was necessary to declare war against me. Nor can I reach him with gold, for in this respect, by which I have gained so many cities, I find him invincible.” Antipater also says of him, “I value not the galleys nor armies of the Athenians. Demosthenes alone I fear. Without him the Athenians are no 68better than the meanest Greeks. It is he that arouses them from their lethargy and puts arms into their hands almost against their will. Incessantly representing the battle of Marathon and Salamis, he transforms them into new men. Nothing escapes his penetrating eye, nor his consummate prudence. He foresees all our designs; he countermines all our projects and disconcerts us in everything. Did the Athenians confide in him and follow his advice we should be irremediably undone.”

From all that can be gathered about this remarkable man it may seriously be considered whether, had he had the power of a Sesostris, a Cyrus or an Alexander, he would not have conquered and ruled the world. But the Athenians failed to follow his advice, and were reduced to submission to Macedon by the youthful Alexander, who said of him, when he passed Thermopylæ, “Demosthenes called me a child when I was in Illyria; he called me a young man when I was in Thessaly: I must now show him before Athens that I am a man grown.”

After the conquest was complete Alexander summoned at Corinth representatives from the several Grecian States, and requested from them the supreme command of all their armies against the Persians. No assembly ever held was embryotic of more momentous events. It was the Western World taking counsel and resolving upon the destruction of the Eastern, and was the initiatory step to almost incredible events, and to the revolutions that were to change the condition of the whole world, through the unexampled career of him who caused its assembling.

After the death of Alexander, the several Grecian States renewed the struggle for freedom. The Romans, who had risen in the West, becoming involved in the strife, proved fatal to Greece; for in the year 146 B. C. the capture of Corinth reduced Greece to a Roman province.

During the whole period of strife from the battle of Platæa, the arts and sciences flourished in a most extraordinary manner. Indeed, it was the golden age of art. The Grecian colonies were still more prosperous than their mother country. Alexandria, in Egypt, especially, became famous as the seat of learning. In the time of Augustus, the Greeks lost even the shadow of their former freedom and ceased to be an independent people; but they became the instructors of their conquerors; for their language, manners, customs, learning, arts and tastes spread over the whole Roman empire. After a time the Romans came to esteem the Greeks as the most worthless of creatures.

69Asiatic luxury, acquired from the Persians, had wholly corrupted the Greek’s ancient love of freedom, and a mean servility became substituted therefor. At the beginning of the fourth century the people scarcely showed a single trace of their former noble characteristics of simplicity and grandeur; and thus Greece passed into her condition of unimportance.

ROME.

Rome originally was but an insignificant city, founded on the banks of the Tiber by some herdsmen, whose small numbers were swelled somewhat “by strangers and outcasts from all the country about.” The herdsmen were without doubt Pelesgians, who had previously occupied the more easterly portions of Europe. The language they introduced bears unmistakable evidence of similarity to the Greek. That a people so humble as the original Romans were, who labored principally upon an unproductive soil for sustenance, should have increased in numbers, power and influence, so as to rule the world, seems almost incredible; but so it was.

A three-fold division of the people was early spoken of, probably representing as many different tribes. Each of these tribes was divided into ten smaller bodies called “Curial;” in war these divisions were represented by thirty centuries that made up the “legion.”

There were very few women among the early Romans. They seized on some Sabine women who came among them to witness their games, which seizure caused a war with the Sabines; the result of the war was the union of the Sabines with the Romans, and the extension among them of the same rules and divisions that existed among the Romans. This first conquest was prophetic of all future conquests, terminating as it did by the conquered country being added to Rome to increase its territory and power. The system of conquest thus begun continued with more or less activity during four centuries, when Rome had acquired nearly all the country as far east as the Euphrates. 500 years B. C. Tarquin, the last king, was expelled by the Senate, and the Roman republic began. During its first century, contentions among themselves prevented the Romans from materially extending their conquests. About the eightieth year of the republic the Gauls first attacked, captured and plundered Rome; nor could the Romans expel them until the banished Consul Camillus was recalled to command the 70armies. Soon after this, rapid strides to greatness were made, and Rome became the centre of attraction for the world. All countries, not already Roman, sought alliance, thereby hoping to escape conquest.

It was during this time of glory that luxury was first admitted and practised by Romans; and, as in all other countries, it laid the foundation for future ruin, by introducing into use licentious, vicious, and effeminate practices, where simplicity, purity and honor had previously held full sway.

Two hundred and eighty years B. C. the Carthagenians forming an alliance with the King of Syracuse brought on the first Punic war. The Syracusans soon deserted to the Romans and ever remained constant to them. The Romans had now acquired such love of, and thirst for, glory that they were considered unconquerable. In Sicily they gained great naval victories, and Africa trembled when her fleets neared its shores. The Carthagenians, through the advice of the Lacedemonian, Xantippus, defeated the army commanded by Regulus and captured him; he subsequently lost his life at the hands of the Carthagenians for opposing at Rome the conclusion of peace. The war continued by the advice of Regulus, turned in favor of the Romans, and the Carthagenians were compelled to accept the terms of peace offered by the Romans, thus ending the first Punic war.

The conquest of Seguntum by the Carthagenians, contrary to the terms of peace, led to the second Punic war, in which the celebrated Hannibal figured so conspicuously, and for a time made Rome tremble. From this temporary fear the Romans emerged more terrible than ever. They not only put a stop to the victorious career of Hannibal, but conquered Spain, and, crossing into Africa, compelled the recalling of Hannibal to defend Carthage. The famous battle of Zama ensued, in which both Hannibal and Scipio displayed the greatest military talent. The study of this battle has since been the admiration of all great military captains. The victorious Romans dictated again the terms of peace, which Carthage was obliged to accept. Thus ended the second Punic war.

The ambition of Rome now increased to such an immoderate extent as to threaten the reduction of the whole world to submission. Macedon and Syria endeavored to make head against them, but nothing could withstand the irresistible power of the perfectly disciplined Roman legions. Macedon was glad to end the war by becoming a Roman province, and Syria, to escape total destruction, by ceding to Rome the larger portion of her territory.

71Carthage, the former powerful rival of Rome, still existed, which so annoyed the Romans that its destruction was determined upon and accomplished by the third Punic war, which ended 145 years B. C. The complete subjugation of all the Greek and Spanish provinces immediately followed, and Roman power was unparalleled. This begat a spirit of intolerance which goaded many of her conquered provinces into revolt. Combining their armies, they for a time successfully resisted the Romans. Pompey, coming into command, rapidly crushed out all resistance. Internal contentions between the several factions at Rome quickly followed the reduction of the formidable revolt. Cæsar, Pompey and Crassus, more active than the rest, divided the government between themselves. This was the first triumvirate. Cæsar would have no equal, and Pompey could endure no superior. The rivalry between these two powerful men was the initiatory step to the conditions that ruined the republic. Cæsar obtained the consulate and government of Gaul, and began to lay the foundation for his future greatness by extending his military enterprises in all directions. He defeated the Swiss, conquered the Germans, subdued the Belgians, reduced the whole of Gaul, invaded Britain, imposed tributes upon the people everywhere, and became the master spirit of the time.

When Cæsar returned to Rome Pompey fled. Cæsar then became perpetual dictator. This was about 50 years B. C. Pursuing Pompey into Greece, Cæsar defeated him at the great battle of Pharsalia, and thus overcame all opposition to unlimited power. In this possession Cæsar became so intolerably overbearing that a conspiracy was formed against him, which resulted in his death at the hands of Brutus. The love of the people, especially the women, remained Cæsar’s, so the new ruler found no peace. The strife between Brutus, Antony, and Octavius waxed warm, and Rome, as in the days of Marius and Scylla, became the scene of infamy and horror. Octavius and Antony, overcoming all opposition, divided the empire between them. Octavius remained in the west, Antony went to the east, and there became enamored of Cleopatra, the Egyptian Queen, for whom he abandoned Octavio, the sister of Octavius. This brought about a conflict, and Octavius proceeded to the east with a great army to chastise Antony. By the treachery of Cleopatra, whose army and navy deserted to Octavius, Antony was totally defeated. The treachery of Cleopatra determined him to take his life, which in turn caused her such grief that she sought and found relief through the aspen’s bite.

72Octavius thus became sole master of the mightiest empire the world had ever beheld. It comprised nearly every country then known under a universal monarchy. Octavius assumed the title of Augustus Cæsar, and reigned over this mighty empire forty-five years with the most consummate skill and prudence, and with a profound appreciation of the position he occupied. It was during his reign that literature flourished so extensively. The best literary age of all countries has since been called its Augustan age, as likened to that of Rome under him. In the thirtieth year of his reign Jesus Christ was born. The Roman Empire at this time assumed its proudest and grandest pitch of power and glory, which will ever be the wonder and admiration of coming ages, until another nation shall arise to a greater and still more glorious condition, of which Rome will forever remain prophetic until fulfilled.

From the reign of Augustus to Constantine the Great, who transferred the capital to Byzantium, the empire sustained a series of good and bad rule, and declined somewhat from its previous proud position. On the death of Constantine the Great, Constantine II., Constantius and Constance divided the empire. Constantine II. had all Europe west of the Alps; Constantius Italy, Sicily and Africa; and Constance Asia, Egypt and the whole East. This division was the beginning of the great disasters that came fast upon Rome. Constantine and Constantius being disposed of by treason, Constance usurped the whole power; being destitute not only of all capacity for so extended rule, but also of all honor, the empire began to disorganize. During his reign and that of his successor, until Theodosius, about the year 400, country after country successfully revolted against the power of Rome. Everything in which her former renown and glory consisted degenerated, until Rome was precipitated into that condition which ultimated in her entire destruction, so that she who so lately was the proud mistress of the world, was unable to resist the barbarians of Northern Europe, who extinguished her light, thereby leaving the world in the midnight and anarchy of the “Dark Ages.”

MODERN EUROPE.

With the downfall of Rome that portion of history called ancient ceases. The numerous provinces of Europe that had been under the 73Roman power were completely under the control of the various barbarians who had destroyed that power. Out of this condition of anarchy modern Europe rose. As it consists of a number of countries their separate histories will not be considered; only such prominent facts regarding the whole will be observed as seem to indicate and mark its general progressive steps.

From the fall of Rome in 476 to the time of Charlemagne in 800, Western Europe was the scene of those operations that determined its present divisions. The barbaric tribes that occupied it were the Vandals, Suevi, Alans, Visigoths, Burgundians, Germans, Franks, Lombards, Angles, Saxons and Huns. The Visigoths founded Spain; the Angles and Saxons formed the seven kingdoms of Britain; the Germans fixed themselves on the Danube, and from these grew all the German States; the Lombards had Italy, and the Franks France. During this period Mohammed founded an empire in Asia, out of the ruins of which most of the monarchies of Western Asia arose.

Charlemagne was the ruling spirit of what may be termed the second period of modern European history, from 800 to 1074. Under him France took form and rank as one of the first powers of the world, and has never since been entirely divested of it. He temporarily re-established the Western Empire, but with his death it went to pieces. Spain was the theatre of the terrible wars between the Moors and Christians. The seven Saxon kingdoms were united by Egbert, who became the first King of England. The whole north of Europe was still barbarous, and frequently poured its hordes over the civilization in the south that was struggling for existence. The Danes ravaged England, and became masters of it; while Germany, under Otho the Great, rose to great power. The other present European States were still in obscurity.

The third period of modern European history extended from 1074 to 1453. During this period the German Empire was the scene of constant quarrels between the Emperors and the Popes, under the factions called Guelphs and Ghibelines, which dimmed the lustre Otho had conferred on it; Naples and Sicily were erected into kingdoms by the Normans; Denmark arose to some importance under Wildemar II.; in France, legislation and police restraints were introduced, but her power was nearly crushed by Edward III. of England, which country was in turn deluged in blood by the “Wars of the Roses;” Genoa and Venice increased in rank and importance; Spain still suffered from the Moors; Portugal became a distinct kingdom; Sweden and Norway 74came into existence; Russia emerged from the barbaric rule of the Tartars; Poland put on the royal dignity; Hungary and Bohemia were added to Austria, and the Turkish Empire rose to great power, putting an end to the Eastern Empire. The arts and sciences began to be cultivated again in the West, and literature and learning to flourish. Many inventions were produced, such as paper making, printing, engraving, painting in oil, gunpowder, and the mariner’s compass, and this brings us to the fourth period of history, which was pregnant with events that were to modify and change the general conditions of the world.

The fourth period extended two hundred years to 1650. In it America and the West Indies were discovered. The Reformation brought about great changes in very many respects in nearly every European country, many of which underwent important revolutions. Germany made important legislative improvements; feudal government was destroyed in France; Spain became a Christian kingdom; England rose to great power, especially under Elizabeth; Italy divided herself into numerous small States; Switzerland became a republic; the provinces of Holland declared their independence of Spain; Poland flourished; Denmark became of importance; affairs in Russia assumed a new appearance, the power of the Tartars being destroyed, and the Ottoman Empire became grand under Solyman II.

About 1650, the beginning of the fifth historic period, the political systems of Europe began to undergo considerable change, which, from various causes, continued until the time of Bonaparte. Revolutions in England, France, Germany and Russia caused various modifications, not only in the limits of the various countries, but also in their governments. England and France seemed to divide the other Powers about equally in the support and continuance of their wars; the general configuration of Europe, however, did not sustain any radical changes. This period is important in another and new aspect. Colonies from all the western kingdoms were continually going to the new America—that country which should in future exercise such control over the destinies of the world.

From time to time in the history of the world there have arisen single great men who by the grandeur of their enterprises and the power of their intellect and ambition, have left indelible impressions of themselves upon its history and condition. Such were Sesostris, Cyrus, Alexander, Cæsar and Charlemagne. Though they all possessed many traits of character which the present age cannot admire, they must ever 75be regarded as having given general civilization those great impulses that have so rapidly evolved the world from barbarism.

At the beginning of the next period another great man appeared, the waves of whose power were felt over the whole world, and who, by the grandeur of his conceptions, power and executive will, rose from obscurity to dictate to Europe, which was at that time the world. From 1789 to 1815 may justly be styled the Bonapartean period. It would be superfluous to recapitulate his career; nor would it be less so to trace the rescuing of America from the savages by the resistless advance of civilization, which, since the settlement of Jamestown, in 1607, has made such unexampled progress in all things that pertain to greatness, grandeur and glory—in literature, science, art and government.

Before closing the resume of general history it should be observed that many great events have been passed unnoticed, the principal aim having been to follow the western tendency of empire, and to present only such facts as were prominent in forming standards of progress, perpetual landmarks and historic eras. In Asia particularly, great events occurred, such as the career of Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane. The former, it is computed, slaughtered fifteen millions of human beings during his reign. The efforts of such as he were the last struggles of barbarians to arrest the onward course of general progress. Though for a time triumphant in their course the genius of progress could never be entirely eradicated where once it had found root and growth. China and India have been passed because, for the most part, they have been confined within themselves; the reason whereof will be discussed hereafter.

THE TENDENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of May 16, 1870.]

VICTORIA C. WOODHULL’S LAST LESSON IN POLITICAL HISTORY.

[The following communication from Mrs. Woodhull, who, as the public is already informed, has devoted herself to enlightenment on the question of government, will be found as interesting as any of her 76previous letters on the same subject This is Mrs. Woodhull’s concluding letter on the Tendencies of Government:]

In entering upon the next and third part of the subject, we are conscious of the imperfect construction of the second. It must be remembered that the purpose of the resume was not to give consecutive historic detail, but to mark such special facts as evidently show there was a progressive and consecutive rise and fall of nations. Without apology for omissions and minor errors, we proceed to the consideration whether the facts elicited from history form a consecutive chain of progress, by which the world has been evolved from barbarism, and whether this evolution has been according to present philosophic formulas. The first and most prominent fact that becomes obvious to the observer of general history is that the progress of empire has always been from the east, westward. The progress of the earth in its daily rotation upon its own axis and also in its orbital movement around the sun is toward the east. This is believed to explain the order maintained by the course of empire. Motion being in the direction of the least resistance, the general tendency of the surface influence of the earth must be west. Counter side influences have at times caused deviations from straight lines, but this only makes the general proposition still more forcible. Therefore, as a general proposition, the course of empire and of civilization and population has always been westward.

If this proposition is applied to pre-historic times, to govern deductions regarding it, neither Assyria nor Egypt can be considered as having been the first powerful empire of the world. It is known that in them there existed a numerous and powerful people of whom history fails to give the exact or even supposed origin; the same is true of all the surrounding countries, in Europe, Asia and Africa. If it is allowed that population has resulted from the same general law that civilization has, it must be admitted that China and India were the predecessors of Assyria and Egypt.

Allowing that China and India existed as vast tribal communities previous to the historic age of Assyria and Egypt, it will be seen that population, general civilization and improving government crossed Asia westward and developed the Assyrian Empire, which, for the same general reasons must be held the predecessor of Egypt.

The Assyrian Empire attained its greatest power under Semiramis, 2,150 years B. C., which was about the beginning of the historic age of Egypt, and 700 years before Sesostris conquered the greater part of the known world. In whatever comparative light the histories of these 77two countries are viewed, Assyria must be deemed the more ancient empire. It may be further observed, if Nimrod was the first King of Assyria, and the father of Ninus, who was the husband of Semiramis, the empire came to its greatest glory in an exceedingly short time. Very many reasons can be assigned why Assyria must have been an empire of centuries when Semiramis reigned.

The Assyrian Empire, in the year 2,150 B. C., was the great power of the world, having sway over the greater part of Asia and Africa. Seven hundred years afterward, or 1,499 years B. C., Egypt had risen to its greatest glory, and under Sesostris acquired the Assyrian Empire, besides a vast country in Europe and Africa which Semiramis had never subdued.

Out of the ruins of Assyria, Babylon, Nineveh and Medea were formed, and, after being consolidated, were merged into the famous Persian Empire by Cyrus, 536 years B. C., or 950 years after the proudest Egyptian period. The Persian Empire absorbed the Indian and Egyptian, and became the most splendid power that had existed, and with rising Greece divided the world.

Grecian power being concentrated by Alexander of Macedon, he acquired the ascendancy over the Persians, and became the world’s conqueror. Numerous Grecian colonies, following the general tide of influence westward, formed powerful kingdoms in various parts of the Mediterranean coasts and islands.

Rome, rising to power, contended with Carthage for supremacy in the west. Carthage being destroyed by the three Punic wars, the attention of Roman armies was turned eastward, to gather in the elder empires that were verging on decay. Greece, 146 years B. C., became the Roman province of Achaia. Continuing its conquests further, fifty years B. C., Rome became ruler of a greater part of the inhabited world than any of the previous empires, and existed in the utmost pomp and glory several centuries, until the northern barbarians swept over and extinguished it.

No considerable Power existed after 476, until Charlemagne’s, though some influence attached to several Asiatic countries. Civilized nations were extinct in Europe. From Charlemagne, in 800, to 1500, civilization continued to rear its blighted head in various parts of Europe, and to mark the countries that should play the next last act in the drama of unceasing general progress.

The historic age of the world, then, has been occupied thus: The Assyrian Empire existed and was subdued by the Egyptian, which 78was conquered by the Persian, which was destroyed by the Grecian, which was compelled to yield to the Roman, which was destroyed by the barbarians, that from its ashes numerous kingdoms and empires should arise, to exist together, and to spread over and occupy the outside world Rome had never known.

From this succession of empire many deductions might be drawn which would assist in forming a well-defined line of progress. Many are so obvious that it would be superfluous to name them; therefore we leave them, with the general observation, that in each succeeding empire the condition of the people was more directly and distinctly recognized, while each, in grasping for universal sway, and not possessing the principles upon which universal government was possible, exceeded the limits of its central strength, and thereby fell. India and China alone, of all ancient nations, survive, because they have never sought to extend their limits, but have expended their strength within their own, though it often was in war.

The commercial greatness of England, more than any other present externally apparent power, is promoting the general assimilation of the world. This influence is producing very great and diffusive results in Asia, Africa and South America, and the way is being opened and cleared for more radical and general control. It is impossible that the increasing power of civilized and enlightened ideas and customs in India, China and Asia generally, should not revolutionize those countries. Many Chinese will return from this country, carrying with them the solvent power of the genius of our institutions, which, combining with all similar powers, will ere long kindle the flame of popular individual freedom. This flame will cause republics to spring into existence where one form of government has existed through historic time over the same defined limits of kingdom. Another great and powerful influence is being evolved that cannot fail to exercise a tremendous modifying power over Asia. Russia, the European giant, is slowly but surely pushing into Asia from the west. If it continue its present well-consolidated home strength, it will absorb Asia until it meet the same absorbing process proceeding westward, when Asia will be prepared for a still grander consummation.

In Europe, Russian influence is also gaining the ascendancy. Though one of the youngest of European kingdoms, it seems possessed of an inherent strength superior to them all, which Bonaparte, with all his terrible power and ambition, could not scatter nor weaken, and which stands ever ready to gather under its protecting wings the sickening 79adjacent kingdoms. At present Russia is biding her time and strengthening her arms, which she is conscious shall soon reach out and grasp all they can compass.

Prussia, meantime, is spending its strength in the vain, though apparently successful, endeavor to consolidate a country under absolute control, that is impossible of a people so numerously and diffusively represented, in a country where freedom is the rule. Throughout Southern, Central and Southwestern Europe, republicanism impatiently awaits the time to burst forth, and sweep among the debris of the past all traces of monarchy. The country over which the Roman eagles triumphed will again be under a republican form of government, improved upon that of Rome by 2,000 years of successful experiment. Russia will then occupy a central position between the republics of Europe and Asia, and its emperors be the last to yield their crowns. Like no other country, Russia has vast possessions in the unyielding frigid zone, which gives way but slowly before the gradually equalizing temperature of the globe, and of the character of which Russian Government naturally partakes.

Though revolutionized, Southeastern Asia will remain China and India, the ancient Assyrian, Persian and Grecian Empires will be resurrected under the consolidated Russian, while Africa will be left for Egyptian control, the promise of which begins to be visible in the direction given to civilization and commerce by the successful accomplishment of Nechos’ defeated project, and, Egypt returned to be a nation of importance. Africa will naturally gravitate to Egypt, as it is possessed of no other salient point from which dominion and power can spring. In this regard Africa differs from all the other grand divisions of the globe. The character of its inherent wealth is also different. Other countries have their frozen regions, inland seas and marshes, stupendous mountains and deep jungles, but Africa alone has its Sahara. Commerce has scattered the germs of civilization here and there upon the coasts of Africa, but its central portions are to all intents as undeveloped as when Semiramis went into Ethiopia, and Sesostris levied his tributes of gold, silver, precious stones and woods. What Africa is held in reserve for by the general economy of the universe it is impossible to determine; but that a time will come when her resources will be required and obtained, is philosophically certain.

In Europe, where the more prominent scenes of modern history have been enacted, a modified method of conquest was begun by its countries, resembling that which was pursued by ancient Greece. This 80was not so much a subdual of foreign countries to actual control as it was the general diffusion among them of civilization upon a more extended scale, made possible by improvements in the art of navigation. The assimilation of the world was thus begun upon a more perfect basis than by force of arms, and which differed widely from it in this fact: that while arbitrary control was at all times open to overthrow, the process of becoming alike, could never be interrupted except by the suspension of intercourse. Under the former, no two empires could exist side by side for any length of time without one being subjugated by the other; under the latter a number of kingdoms have existed for centuries, and though frequently engaged in conflict to settle some dispute of boundary or policy, it has seldom been pursued to utter destruction. The same end grasped for by Semiramis first and by Bonaparte last is being reached by the much more certain though gradual process of assimilation.