Chapter 3 first part
The exterior shape of North America has an easily distinguishable feature.North America is divided into two huge regions, one extending toward the North Pole and the other toward the Equator.The area in the north, facing the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean in the east and west, forms a huge triangle with the bottom of the Great Lakes in Canada.This triangular area is a vast plain.In the area extending to the south, the Allegheny Mountains border the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Rocky Mountains border the Pacific Ocean to the west. The two are like two high walls, separated on both sides.In the vast area in the middle is a large river valley, at the bottom of which flows the Mississippi River.
The Mississippi River has changed its course several times, and is fed by 57 major navigable rivers, and countless smaller rivers flow into it from all directions.The valley through which the Mississippi River flows is a creation of nature.Closer to the river, there is an inexhaustible fertile field.The farther away from the river, the barren the land and the sparser the vegetation.Everything in the valley of the Mississippi bears the imprint of the action of water.
The strip of coast between the eastern side of the Allegheny Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean was where English pioneers first set foot in search of a new life.After some hard work, they turned it into a British colony.It was on this land that the United States of America was later established.
For centuries, in this vast and desolate land of North America, there lived some tribes of native Indians who lived in no fixed place.They have been breeding freely in their own area of activity, and have never had contact with highly cultured races.Everything about them is self-sustaining, self-contained in a wild and independent state.Although people are slightly ignorant and impoverished in terms of culture and material life, their behavior is not rough, modest, polite, and everyone is equal and free.
When the Europeans first arrived, the Indians could not yet understand the value of wealth, let alone enjoyment through wealth.In general, Indians are mild-tempered and hospitable.They can even expose themselves to starvation for the rescue of a stranger seeking a night's sleep.But under special circumstances, the cruelty of the Indians is far beyond the imagination of normal people.For example, they would tear the limbs of captives to pieces.Their fearless courage, arrogance, and firm self-esteem can be said to surpass some very famous countries.Indians can live a life of asceticism, toil without complaint, and often die singing songs.They worship their own gods, believe in the existence of a beautiful world, and have a simple and philosophical understanding of common sense.
The Indians are the native inhabitants of this land, but their way of life has not changed the desolation here at all, and they do not really own the land.Their passions and virtues, together with their deep-rooted prejudices and vices, lead them to the path of self-destruction.Especially since the arrival of the Europeans, their demise has been going on and is almost complete today.They seem to have only temporary right to use and benefit from this fertile land.Their existence seems to be waiting for the arrival of others.
In this vibrant new continent, the European colonists have begun to create a new society, and new theories that people don't know are being practiced here, creating a new spectacle of historical development.
Some people think that to examine a person, it is not necessary to look back at his childhood, but only to study his various behaviors and qualities after he has grown up.This understanding is extremely wrong.In my opinion, to examine a person must start from his infancy, must be combined with the influence of the external environment he received in childhood, must listen to his words when he opened his mind, and must explore how his struggle experience in adolescence shaped his life. The strong character of its adulthood.Only then can you really understand how the thoughts, habits, and characters that governed his life were formed.In a certain sense, everything about a person begins in his cradle.
For a nation, the reason for its growth is the same as for a person.Every people bears the imprints of their infancy.Everything in the growth process of a nation, including the environment, will always affect everything in his later life.All the content of a nation's national character, such as a nation's ideas, habits, emotions, etc., can be explained from the imprints of the early development of the social members of this nation.It is these things that a nation has fundamentally determine the sustainable development and future of this nation.But not most people realize this, which is what is most lacking in our current research.People often think of studying the past of a nation only after the results of its decline have already appeared.But at this time, time has already diluted all traces of the past, and it is no longer possible for us to reproduce the original real situation.
In view of the above understanding, before examining the political and social conditions in the United States, I would like to study the history of the United States seriously.Fortunately, the history of the United States is only a few hundred years old. People can clearly see its entire development process and discover the evolution process of its various constituent elements in detail.Therefore, I can confidently say that any concept, custom, law, policy, or any historical event in the United States can be explained from the origin of this country.Looking back, one can clearly see the profound influence of states' history on their later development.
Different immigrants immigrated to the United States at different times, making up the current demographic and ethnic status quo.These immigrants differ in many ways: they have different goals and they follow different principles of the rule of law.At the same time, they also have obvious common features.Specifically include:
First, a common language.All immigrants originally came from England, spoke English, and belonged to one ethnic group.
Second, familiarize yourself with the concept of rights and the principles of freedom.For a long time, there have been constant conflicts among denominations in the UK, and each denomination has tried to use laws to protect their own rights and interests, and believers have also gained political experience from the struggles of different religions.The British were more familiar with the idea of rights and the principles of liberty than any other European at the time.The British who immigrated to America in the early days already possessed the principle of popular sovereignty and the idea of local self-government, and they also brought the good sentiments of the British nation to the New World.
Third, maintain and develop democracy.The immigrants to the New World, English, French, Spaniards, early or late, preserved and continued to develop democracy in all the new colonies they created.The reason for this is simple. Those who live well and have power will not emigrate easily. Only those who are deeply impoverished and in a state of disaster will choose to move to a new environment.Immigrants are in almost the same situation, absolutely not thinking of themselves as superior and despising the people around them, they are naturally equal.Because of political and religious disputes, some rich people and great lords were forced to come to America, and the colonies formulated laws to distinguish between noble and humble, but people soon discovered that it was impossible for the hierarchy and aristocratic system to survive in the land of America. of.The fundamental reason is that the foundation on which the aristocratic system is based cannot take root here.In the new environment, owning land was no longer the sole right of nobles. Immigrants all had their own land, which had to be cultivated by the owner himself;
These common features of early American immigrants are both an objective fact and an artificial creation.Together they form a large family life.Here, there is no slightest inequality and class distinction. On the one hand, people uphold and develop the principle of freedom, and on the other hand, they have created a new, complete and truly equal democracy.
Immigrants to the United States have both similarities and some very stark differences—namely, North and South.Anglo-Americans are roughly divided into two branches, the North and the South, each developing separately and not converging.
Virginia was the first English colony in the south, and the immigrants here were aggressive by nature and lacked talent and character.Because of them, the newly established colony has added a lot of chaos, so the development has been slow and fast.The industrial and agricultural workers who immigrated later were relatively moral and mild-tempered, but on the whole, they were not very different from the lower classes in England.Their knowledge is not rich, and they have no plan to establish a new system.
In the southern colonies, the event that needs special attention is the slavery here.It has had a major impact on the living conditions, politics, laws and future development of people in the whole southern region.Such vices as indolence, idleness of thought, idleness of action, ignorance, arrogance, pomp, and luxury arose.Generally speaking, slavery and the character of the British jointly determined the formation of social sentiments in the South.
The north is a different story.The English colonies in the north are commonly known as New England, from which several main ideas that form the basis of American social theory today originated and gradually spread to other states until they spread throughout the entire Union.In addition, its influence is beyond the United States, affecting the entire America.
Like a great pillar of fire burning on the highlands, the civilization of New England not only warmed the neighboring regions, but illuminated with its dazzling splendor the farther horizons.
Immigrants from England banded together as soon as they landed on the New England coast, creating a distinctive social scene.In this new continent, there is no distinction between great lords and subjects, nor between the poor and the rich.These immigrants were all well-educated, and some were even known throughout Europe for their outstanding talents.Unlike other colonies, the immigrants who settled in New England were not single adventurers. They often moved in with their wives, daughters, and families, and brought order and morality to this desolate area.They have a completely different purpose of immigration from immigrants from other regions - they come here to start a business and realize their ideals.Their thirst for knowledge, passion for struggle, perseverance and optimism enabled them to overcome all kinds of hardships and sufferings in exile.Their pioneering work shows that they abandoned their existing social status and comfortable life, chose to leave their homeland, and came here not because they had no choice but to get rich, and their sole purpose was to create a new life.
The English immigrants in New England basically belonged to a Puritan sect with strict teachings in the United Kingdom, and they were devout Puritans.The biggest feature of this sect is that its teachings are not only a religious theory, but also a political theory that includes democratic and republican ideas.For this reason, its adherents faced some extremely dangerous enemies, and the British government often persecuted them.The circumstances of their daily life do not correspond to strict doctrine.They resolutely decided to immigrate in order to explore and create a new world of freedom, where they could live in full accordance with the Puritan teachings and worship God freely.The first thing these immigrants did when they came to the New World was to establish a new society according to the teachings of Puritanism. Through new conventions, a new political system and social environment were formed. They promulgated corresponding laws, decrees and government orders, Appoint and remove political officials.These changes allowed them to achieve autonomy, and laid the foundation and provided guarantees for the realization of the ultimate purpose of immigration.Migration was always going on in New England, and every year a new batch of Christians landed on the coast.The rapid increase in population has also brought about an increasingly homogeneous immigrant society, which is very different from the British domestic society dominated by the class hierarchy at that time.Democracy, which people never had, emerged from the cocoon of the ancient feudal society and blossomed here.New England has become a testing ground for democratic innovation, a vast arena for people to create their future and realize their dreams.
Having colonies was a major reason Britain remained prosperous.British colonies had more political freedom and independence than colonies of other countries.The New England region of the New World is a typical example of the implementation of the principle of freedom.
The British immigrants still affirmed the suzerainty status of Britain, but they no longer regarded Britain as their source of power, but established a new democratic regime.Here, the immigrants began to exercise their sovereignty according to their own will: they decided to appoint and dismiss administrators, conclude peace treaties, declare wars, and formulate laws and regulations and security regulations.They will not surrender or submit to any power but God.The democratic practice of immigrants is unique and instructive.You can already find answers to the major social problems facing America today.For example, in the process of enacting criminal laws, legislators focus on maintaining social moral norms and good customs through laws.Therefore, they attach great importance to the worship of conscience, and include almost all evil deeds in the scope of punishment.This imbues their penal laws with the religious passions that have always been in the hearts of the people, and at the same time reveals a narrow sectarian spirit.Another example is the political laws they enacted. Although these laws were enacted two hundred years ago, they seem to be far more advanced than the spirit of freedom we preach now.In the process of enacting laws, the states of New England recognized, established and absorbed some general principles on which modern constitutions depend, such as "individual liberty, people's participation in public affairs, voting to determine taxes, specifying the responsibilities of administrative officials, and adopting the jury system" .At the same time, Britain had not yet applied these basic principles, and most Europeans in the 17th century could not even understand these principles, let alone any European country that dared to try to implement them.New Englanders, by contrast, have been on a journey to apply and develop a democratic practice of these principles.
For another example, the electorate in Connecticut was composed of all citizens from the beginning, and they immediately understood the significance of this approach. At that time, the property status and level of knowledge of these residents were almost the same.All executive officers in Connecticut, including the governor of the state, were to be elected by them.This idea of local autonomy, embodied and developed in the laws of all New England, Connecticut included, remains to this day the principle and essence of American liberty.
The political practice in most European countries generally proceeds from the top of the society to other parts of the society from top to bottom and gradually advances.In this process, political principles have lost their original integrity and become diversified.But the situation in the United States is exactly the opposite. Its political activities are advancing from the bottom to the top.First came the formation of the township, then the formation of the county, then the formation of the state, and finally the formation of the federation.
Although Britain's supremacy as the suzerain was still recognized by the colonies, and some states still enshrined the monarchy into law, republics had been established at the township level in these areas.The political practice within the township has fully operated in accordance with the principles of democracy and republic.Townships can appoint all administrative officials, formulate tax rules, collect and distribute taxes autonomously.Instead of a representative form of democracy, New England townships practiced direct democracy.For all matters involving the interests of all residents, the method adopted is to hold a citizens' assembly in a public place to discuss and decide.
By studying this period of early legal practice under the American republic, I was deeply impressed by the advanced thinking and management skills of the legislators at that time.Under the guidance of the idea that the society should be responsible for its members, they not only stipulated obligations for the society, but also formulated many detailed rules in the law to meet the large number of needs that may arise in the society.And these ideas were much nobler and more complete than similar ideas of European legislators at the time.
On the whole, the statutes concerning the national education of the United States embody the most prominent features of its civilization.These decrees stipulated that schools should be funded by township residents, and heavy fines would be imposed on those who did not.Higher-level schools are set up in counties and districts in the same way as in townships.Local government agencies have the responsibility to urge parents to send their children to school, and also impose fines on those who do not comply with education laws.What is even more severe is that if the punishment does not have the desired effect, the rights of the parents of the children will be deprived, and the government will act on their behalf, using coercive power to house and educate the children.These regulations fully demonstrate that religion inspires the wisdom of the people of the United States, and that obedience to God's commandments leads people to freedom.
These principles, practiced in New England, became the future creed of the great American nation.At the same time, Europeans not only failed to understand these new practices, they even showed contempt for these principles.The democratic innovation and legislative system full of human rational wisdom were not only born in the original imagination of human beings, but also put into practice like never before.
From this we may discover the true character of the civilization possessed by the Anglo-Americans.The religious spirit and the spirit of freedom are integrated and organically interacted here, forming a new value.In other places, it is almost impossible to form a civilization from two completely different and mutually exclusive spiritual values.In New England, however, the two complement each other.
The essence of this new civilization was that the pioneers of New England were at once ecclesiastics and bold innovators, a fusion of both roles.Even if they have some extreme religious views, they will not hold any political prejudices.For them, everything in the religious world is a priori, it has been designed and arranged by God, and people can only passively obey; but everything in the political world exists in reality, with constant contradictions, and people can completely despise existence. All the authoritative authority, strive for independence.
This is a contradictory unity of opposites: on the one hand, the two trends run in opposite directions, and on the other hand, they are not hostile to each other.This contradiction is not only reflected in the public sentiment, but also in the law.They are not mutually exclusive or mutually harmful, but support each other, promote each other, bring out the best in each other, and develop together.
During the investigation, I found that the social experience, religion and other traditional factors of the British immigrants had a profound impact on the formation of their people's sentiments and the subsequent development of the United States.However, we must not think that traditional factors are the only and all factors that determine social development. This kind of cognition will oversimplify and absoluteize the problem.What I want to emphasize is that traditional factors are the starting point of the development of the new society, not the source of the development of the new society, let alone the fundamental factor on which a new society is formed.The establishment and development of a new society cannot be completely separated from what these immigrants formed in the original society.For example, British tradition and education have had a profound influence on them. No matter whether they accept this influence actively or unintentionally, their concepts and habits cannot erase this imprint.Therefore, in order to accurately understand and evaluate today's Anglo-Americans, it is necessary to distinguish what is Puritan from what originated from the British.
It is precisely because of the influence of the traditional factors of the Anglo-Americans that there are a lot of contradictions in the political life of the United States.One often finds that some of the laws and customs of the United States are not in harmony with the surrounding environment.These laws completely violate the spirit of American legislation, and the people's sentiments in some local areas are obviously inconsistent with the overall social conditions.In order to explain this contradiction more easily, I will use the following example to illustrate.
The civil and criminal procedures in the United States only stipulate two ways to deal with the defendant, prison and bail.The defendant must first pay a security deposit at the beginning of the proceedings. If he refuses to pay, he will be detained in prison.After this step is completed, the procedure of hearing the facts or counts charged will not start.
This regulation clearly favors the rich and disfavors the poor.Because the poor cannot always have the money to pay the deposit.On the contrary, if the rich can pay a full security deposit after committing a crime, they can hide and escape the punishment they deserve.In other words, legal punishment means only paying some money to the rich.Obviously, what is reflected here is the characteristics of aristocratic legislation.
Habits, laws and other things accumulated by a nation for a long time are difficult to change.The civil and criminal provisions we just talked about are contradictory to the main purpose of American legislation and the basic thinking of Americans, and Americans have no way to completely separate history, thus inheriting some content of the old laws.Take civil law as an example, those who really delve into the secrets contained in it are only those who have been engaged in legal work for a long time and can directly benefit from the law. Most members of society will not be familiar with it, and most people choose to just obey .
An in-depth analysis of American society reveals that there are some historical relics of the aristocratic system under the superficial cover of American democracy.
Only by conducting in-depth research on all aspects of a society can we better understand the legislative behavior and public sentiments of a nation born in it.The development and progress of society is not only an objective product, but also the result of social consciousness such as laws and regulations, and more often it is the result of the joint action of the two.But social existence is not passive. On the contrary, a certain social existence determines the formation and development of laws, habits and ideas that regulate and adjust national behavior. Anything that is inconsistent with it will eventually be changed in accordance with the requirements of social development.
There is one thing that has not changed in the colonies established by the Anglo-Americans from the beginning to the present, and that is the democracy of their society, which is also its greatest feature.
As mentioned earlier, the aristocracy still has a certain influence in American society.The great landowners who lived in most of the states southwest of the Hudson River immigrated from England and brought with them the principles of English aristocracy and the laws of succession.But this is not the whole phenomenon. In the area east of the Hudson River, these traditional things from Britain have been difficult to play a big role.Especially in the New England area, only knowledge and virtue can have an impact here, and the equality of status among people has eradicated the soil on which the aristocratic system was built.
Even in the south where slavery existed, although there were big landlords who used slaves to cultivate large tracts of land, they did not have any privileges, nor did they become feudal landlords who lived on rent collection, and there was no strict personal attachment between them and slaves relation.However, although the class-oriented landowners south of the Hudson River have their own ideas and ways of life, and most of them have become local core political figures, they are not very different from the masses of the people, and they have not aroused people's attention. love and hate emotions, because they will also take the initiative to take the feelings and interests of the masses as the content that should be considered.As a class, they are weak and not very vital.But it was this class that sent a group of great figures to the American Revolution and led the independence uprising.
This period, as far as the theme of American society is concerned, should undoubtedly be democracy.Its power is growing day by day, its role is becoming more and more active, the people's strong desire to pursue freedom of will and action is aroused from the bottom of their hearts, and striving for various forms of independence has become the goal of people's efforts.Under the influence of democracy, equality came into being, and the influence of the individual gradually weakened.
The enforcement of the law of inheritance has played a decisive role in the progress of equality.
Because it brought about a great change in the nature of property and property relations.Private property, especially landed property, must continue to shrink in the division, which has completely transformed the land ownership system, making property lose its negative role that may cause inequality.It can be said that the law of inheritance began to act as a "booster" for equalization in society.With the speed of division getting faster and faster, within sixty years, almost all of the once big landowner families in the United States have become unknown ordinary people.Especially after the states announced the abolition of the British inheritance system and the free circulation of property was acquiesced, all traces of the hereditary system and hierarchy have disappeared.
When equality has penetrated into every corner of American society and has become the essential symbol of progress, wealth and knowledge have also benefited from it, reflecting the spirit of equality.Even though people's intelligence is inherently different, everyone's right to equal education provides different people with the same equal development conditions.That is to say, even though the emergence of this natural and innate inequality cannot be eliminated, the society is working hard to create conditions for eliminating inequality and developing acquired equality.
It can be seen that due to the combined effects of time, events, and laws, democracy has not only become the dominant factor governing American society, but also the unique factor.Even if there are still remnants of the aristocratic factor, which was weak from the beginning, it has been subdued and it is difficult to have any influence on the development process of society.Americans have not only achieved equality in such facts as property and knowledge, but have also achieved equality at a deep level of essence—that is, equality of people in strength.And it is this that makes American society an extraordinary spectacle rarely seen anywhere else.
Equality and politics are not in opposition, and the political field and other fields are definitely not "forbidden areas" for equality.Once equality is achieved in some aspects, people will pursue equality in all aspects and will not tolerate inequality in other aspects.One result of people's desire and passion for equality is an effort to make all people powerful and respected.Americans have nothing but equality to satisfy them, and they would rather die than lose their equality.However, too much is too late, and things will be reversed when they are extreme.Unity among people becomes a problem when everyone strives for equality.For example, when the government violates the rights of individuals, no individual can win the struggle alone.Only by joining forces with other equal forces can he achieve his goal of securing their already equal.Equality, therefore, does not necessarily lead to unity.
For Americans, empowering all citizens or making everyone empowered is not the way to create equality in politics.This can be seen from their attitudes towards freedom. Freedom is an instinctive hobby of Americans, but if they find that there is inequality in freedom, then they would rather pursue equality in bondage than choose this. kind of freedom.In other words, freedom is not the ultimate goal and value of Americans, equality is their eternal love.It is also based on this that Americans have successfully abandoned autocratic rule and established and developed popular sovereignty.The American nation is a very fortunate nation. Its composition, wisdom, natural environment, and people's sentiments have had a positive impact on the development of American democracy.
To understand the political system of the United States, it is best to first understand the theory of popular sovereignty.The principle of popular sovereignty has been generally recognized by the people and guaranteed by law.Not only can people freely disseminate the principle of popular sovereignty, but they can also study how it is applied to more aspects of society, and even evaluate it, pointing out its advantages and dangers.The principle of popular sovereignty was the basic social principle of the colonies founded by most British immigrants.In the past, because these colonies were deeply influenced by Britain, the suzerain, the principle of popular sovereignty did not have as great an impact on social development as it does now. It only played a role quietly in the citizens' assemblies and township self-government in various places.It was not until the outbreak of the American Revolution that the principle of popular sovereignty went out of the country and became the political norm at all levels of government.All classes, all peoples, are fighting for the principle of popular sovereignty.Men fought and won in the name of the principle of popular sovereignty, which at last became the maxim of all laws.Revolutions establish democracies, and laws strengthen them.Only when power is firmly controlled by democracy, will there be no other forces to resist.The upper classes of the New World acquiesced to the power of democracy, especially when they realized that power could no longer be wrested from the people, and they did everything in their power to please the people, rather than offend the people and damage democracy.Thus a series of seemingly paradoxical phenomena emerged: those with vested interests actually voted through laws with democratic content that would infringe on their interests; the states most affected by aristocratic factors actually made the greatest progress in democracy; Maryland, established by some great landowners, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage, and the most democratic administration of all its government agencies.The development of society has objective laws independent of human will.The practice of democracy shows that all countries that stipulate various qualification conditions for elections will eventually cancel all the regulations, the difference is only in the time.Every expansion of the scope of suffrage will make the power of democracy stronger, and the strengthening of democratic power will stimulate the further increase of democratic demands, and each increase of democratic demands will only make people want to expand the scope of suffrage.This cycle repeats until universal suffrage is implemented.Due to the constraints of actual objective environmental conditions, although the principle of popular sovereignty has different forms in different places in the United States, its development has not been restricted. The imagination of the American people is the basic factor that contributes to this phenomenon.Sometimes it takes the form of direct democracy that is widespread and widespread, and sometimes it takes the form of indirect democracy with complete oversight.The people can make laws by themselves, and they can also elect members of parliament to exercise their rights on their behalf.The relationship between public power and society is diverse and manifested in different ways in different countries.In some countries, public power is above society, and it wants to control the development and progress of society.In some countries, public power is separated from society. Sometimes power belongs to society, and sometimes power can be divorced from society.The situation in the United States is even more unique, where public power and society are closely integrated.All power belongs to society, and society is completely governed by itself and for itself.The source of power is society, and there can be no other source of power than this.The people participate in the legislative process by electing legislators, and participate in law enforcement activities by electing executives.While the people grant the government certain powers, they also make the government obey the authority of the people.The people rule American politics like God rules the universe.Everything comes from the people and is for the people, and the people are the foundation of all powers.
Governments at all levels in the United States are established under the guidance of the principle of popular sovereignty.The forms and operating mechanisms of governments at all levels are the specific application of this principle, and have corresponding advantages, disadvantages and potential dangers due to different objective conditions.
The United States is a federal state, and the states that make up the main body of the country are similar to sovereign states.Affected by this, the political system in the United States has two separate and relatively independent operating mechanisms. One is the local government, which is responsible for handling daily social affairs within its jurisdiction; the other is the federal government, which is only responsible for handling national affairs. major issues of sex.
Some political principles created and developed by the states gradually rose to the national level and began to play a dominant role in American society.The American federal government was produced and developed on the basis of summarizing these political principles, and it is a variant of the republic.Therefore, if we want to understand the overall situation of American society, we must start by dissecting the states, which is the key to finding solutions to all other problems.Although it is a federal system, the political settings of all states in the United States are the same. From a formal point of view, townships, counties, and states are the three political centers that constitute the political life of each state.
In the history of the development of human society, the most common form of association for people to gather and organize spontaneously is the political organization at the township level.It is also a grassroots political organization that exists in all countries today.Although the existence of township political organizations is a common phenomenon, the freedom and independence enjoyed by townships is not common, and even if there is, it is weak.Especially with the enlightenment of the nation and the improvement of the cultural level of the people, the difficulty of realizing this kind of independence and self-reliance has increased.
For a country, the independence and freedom rights of townships are most likely to be violated by the central government. The higher-level government generally grants various rights to townships from the perspective of democratic experiments. Their focus is not on the results of experiments. To a certain extent It can also be said that they do not want this kind of experiment to succeed at all.A township government that relies entirely on itself cannot defeat the powerful central government. If it wants to continue to survive and develop, it must develop and strengthen itself with all its strength, so that the idea of township freedom can be deeply rooted in the concept of the people and become a political law recognized by the people. .It is no exaggeration to say that as long as township freedom has not developed into popular sentiments, its foundation for existence is not solid, and it will always face the danger of being destroyed.
For people who pursue freedom, practicing democracy in townships is the fundamental and scientific way to accumulate and strengthen their own strength.In the process, the township government organizations taught the people about freedom and taught them how to use freedom for their own benefit.即使一个国家能够建立一个自由的中央政府，但如果没有乡镇政权组织，那么它就不会具有真正自由的精神。
为了更好地介绍美国的乡镇和县一级的政权所建立起来的依据和原则，我以新英格兰的一个州的乡镇作为典型案例进行详细说明。美国各州的乡镇和县所建立的具体方式虽然不同，但其政权组织形式都是依据相同原则建立的。选择新英格兰主要是因为，新英格兰的乡镇政权组织既建立得早，又表现得完整有序，特别是据以建立的原则运用得更加广泛，成效更显著。由于它已成为民情的一部分，得到人民的支持，因此显得更加强大有力，对全社会的影响也更大。
就规模来看。新英格兰的乡镇的人口规模不大不小，一般为两三千人。这正好适中，为所有生活在乡镇的居民提供了实现其共同利益的良好条件。同时，这样的人口数量也足以让人们可以从中挑选出优秀的行政管理人员了。
由于广泛普及了人民主权理论，新英格兰的乡镇的独立和自由有了保障。乡镇拥有独立地处理自身一切事务的权力，包括商业买卖、判决官司、增减预算等事务，州政府是不能干涉的。乡镇的任何一个居民都不会允许损害乡镇自主权利的事情发生。但是，对于涉及全州性的公共事务和关乎所有乡镇的公共利益方面，各乡镇必须服从，这一点也是不容违背的。不过，对于这些方面，州政府只会提出一个基本的原则，至于如何具体执行这些原则就又属于各乡镇的自主权了。比如，州议会拥有表决赋税的权力，但对于如何征收赋税，则由各乡镇独立决定。
乡镇是新英格兰的居民们自愿联合建立的强大集体，他们非常重视这个集体的成长，认真而用心地进行管理。居民们在热衷于参与公共事务的同时，也从这种参与中得到了各种益处。也就是说，乡镇生活与每个人休戚相关、密切相联，人们履行义务、行使权利的过程就是参与乡镇生活的过程。在这一勇往直前的、不打乱社会秩序的乡镇生活运动中，人们不但培育出了乡镇精神，乡镇精神也孕育了新的乡镇居民。
平等观念在新英格兰深入人心，等级区分、压迫现象在这里也被消除。乡镇的居民享有高度的当家做主权力，并根据自己的方式管理乡镇事务。乡镇事务极其容易管理，社会骚乱事件为数不多，再加上生活安定、物资充裕，乡镇生活幸福无比。
对于新英格兰乡镇的居民来说，参加乡镇管理的过程就是保障和实现自己利益的过程，他们的理想和未来与乡镇发生的每一件事情都密切相关，他们必须以符合自己利益与要求的组织形式来管理自己的乡镇。鉴于此，他们关爱自己命运的真挚情感与热爱自己乡镇的理智情绪是完整地融合在一起的。这也充分表明：美国人的爱国心是通过实践而形成的一种眷恋故乡的情感的延展和升华。
美国各级政府的公共权力都来自人民，为此，它们必须要顺从授予自己权力的主人。其中，以乡镇政府行使权力的过程最为典型。新英格兰乡镇一级的立法和行政工作都是在居民的直接参与下完成的，所以没有采用代议制。由居民组成的选举团不但任命当地的行政官员，而且在一切事务方面直接领导他们，工作程序极其简便。
制度的保障和乡镇的民主精神共同孕育了美国的乡镇自由。在新英格兰，乡镇在其权力范围内拥有完全的独立和自主权，享有完全的活动自由。乡镇的居民热爱、依恋着他们的乡镇，他们从乡镇的管理及其组织形式中获益。他们有着发自内心的对秩序的遵守和维护，他们对义务和权力的关系有着深刻的、科学的理解，最终创造了一种权力的和谐局面。
新英格兰乡镇的行政官员也拥有一定的自主权，各州的法律为他们规定了一些能够自主行使的特定权力。只要不超越本乡镇人民已经制定好的原则，他们行使手中的这些权力不再需要经过人民许可，可以在处理公务过程中正确运用。乡镇官员如果想更改某些公议事项或提出新的事务，必须要先请示当地居民许可。具体的程序是，乡镇的几个行政官员要在定好的时间、地点召开全体选民大会，向大家详细通报事务的具体计划和内容。选民大会就此问题在讨论的基础上形成决议，订出原则，交由行政官员去执行。需要补充的一点是，选民大会的召集权不是仅属行政官员，只要当地十名以上选民提出请求，行政官员就必须应可。
在每个乡镇，一些主要的行政官员职位都依据规定设立。每个居民轮流担任这些职位，违反规定者会被罚款。虽然在制度上没有为这些职位规定总的固定的薪酬，但会在每项公务任命单上规定单位工作量的薪酬，并按任这一职务的官员最终完成的工作总量计算出其应得的总薪酬。这样就可以保障贫穷的居民在任职期间劳有所偿。
美国社会中的一切都在悄悄地有条不紊地运转，但却看不到指挥者的存在。有一支无形的巨大力量在操控着社会机器的正常运转——各种成文法律——它得到了全体人们的遵从。
美国人从来不会剥夺政府的权力、否定政府的权威，但却会选择把权力分给更多的人来行使。而且，就当前的世界来说，还没有哪一个国家的公共权力像美国这样被分散给如此多的人行使。美国革命不是造反激情宣泄的结果，也不是由出于对独立的盲目、无限的渴求推动的；它是由于人们对自由的发自内心的热爱驱动的，它自始至终都贯穿着对秩序和法治的维护与创造。因此，他们在追求自由的过程中始终保持着社会的井然有序。
自由并没有让人们为所欲为，人们是以付出承担社会义务的代价来换取享受自由的益处的。在美国，乡镇和州级政权处理日常性事务，县级政权的权力领域被限定在很小的范围内，相应地其政府官员的权力非常有限。在行政上，他们只负责编制本县的预算，然后交立法机关通过。因此，个人活动、乡镇活动和全州活动构成了新英格兰社会生活的主体，县级政治生活并不占据重要位置。
但是，有一个情况需要着重说明，美国司法体系的第一中心是县级行政区域，这是因为乡镇面积太小的缘故。县级司法体系由法院、司法官和监狱组成，尽管所有乡镇都需要，但是却是由县一级政权来负责统筹管理的。
如果把美国的行政权比作一个圆的话，它的与众不同之处在于，这个圆并不是按照固定的圆心和半径规画出来的。美国的行政权既不是中央集权的，也不是分层设置的。举例来说，新英格兰的乡镇的十九种行政职位之间并不存在隶属关系，每一个职位都有其法定的职责范围，在其职权范围内，它是完全独立的，它就只承认乡镇的权威。而县一级的行政官员虽然有时会修改乡镇官员作出的决定，但总的来说，他们却无权指挥乡镇官员的行动，他们只有在涉及全县性质的事务上才能领导后者。同样，乡镇和县的行政官员并不需要事事向州的官员报告工作，州政府也不需要去考核乡镇和县级官员的政绩，在具体事务方面指导他们，谴责他们的错误。在这种情况下，如何能让不同行政区划范围内的官员按照宏观的统一规划行使职责，引导社会有序发展呢？美国的实践作出了合理的回答。那就是让所有层级的官员都遵守法律、依法办事。正因为做到了这一点，美国社会呈现出了一种按部就班、协调一致、有序发展的健康局面。新英格兰各州对行政领域在内的社会的各个方面都可以立法。法律不但规定原则，还规定了原则的适用方法；法律不但保障权利，还规定了细密繁多的义务。
当然，法律的实施还要有一定的制度作为保障。就美国社会来说，有两种制度确保了官员对法律的遵守。一种是建立了对不遵从法律的官员进行罢免的制度。另外一种是建立了由法院惩处违法官员的制度。地方法院的这种权力又是由治安法官具体执行的。治安法官在处理民众与乡镇官员以及行政机关与司法机关之间的各种纠纷时，必须要采取不偏不倚的立场，他们的工作与其说需要法律知识，倒不如说更需要公正和良知。他们在工作中形成的照章办事和政务公开、向民众负责的作风，是防止权力专横现象滋生的最强大武器。通常来说，县级地方法院处理的涉及县域范围内的工作都是行政性的。只有当它在处理违法行政官员时，它才是以司法机关的身份行使司法机关的职责。
如果对美国各州实行乡镇自治的状况作个评价的话，新英格兰地区实施的程度比较深、水平比较高。越向南部，乡镇的自治程度越差，乡镇居民对乡镇事务的影响越小，选民的权力也越小。因此，民选官员的权力较大、选民的权力较小。在州政府和普通民众之间形成了县级这个主要行政中心，由它来处理几乎全部的行政工作。在纽约州、俄亥俄州和宾夕法尼亚州，甚至还产生了县级的具有代议制性质的议会。县和乡两级政权谁是当地的行政中心，这个问题构成了美国各州在县和乡镇政权组织方面的主要差别。总的来说，虽然存在这些差别，但美国的行政系统运行所依据的精神和原则却是一样的，只是在对原则的具体应用以及由此产生的效果上存在一些差异。美国的乡镇和县建立的具体方式是不一样的，但两者建立政权组织的理论基础是相同的。这主要包括：保证公民个人能够以自身的力量满足其个体需要，保障其个体利益；由乡镇和县的政权组织负责处理公共利益，州的政权组织负责宏观治理，不管理日常行政事务。遵照这种原则和思想，由当地居民自己选举产生乡镇和县的所有行政官员，这就消除了等级制度赖以生存的土壤。同时，行政权是分散的，有多少职位就有多少权力完全独立的官员。可以说，过度的地方分权，是美国公共行政模式最突出的特点。
美国行使立法权采用的是两院制模式，交由两个分开的立法机构共同行使，这给美国带来了莫大的好处。当前，这已经被作为一项政治学公理而进行广泛传播。具体来说，美国各州的立法权由参议院和众议院两个立法机关共同行使。参议院通常情况下担当的是立法机关的职责，但它在根据各州宪法规定参与行政工作时，它就会变成行政机关；而当它审理某些政治案件或民事案件时，它就会分享司法权，成为司法机关。众议院则不享有任何行政权，只有在向参议院控告公职人员时才会享有司法权。各州选举两院议员的资格条件是相同的，是由本州的公民按照同样的方式选举出来。众议员和参议员的差别在于，参议员的任期较长、人数不多，众议员的任期较短、人数较多。
美国各州的行政权集中在州长身上。各州州长由本州民众选举产生，时时处处受到选民的监督，任期一般为一年或两年。州长集数职于一身。首先，他是立法机关的主宰者，他可以根据州的需要向立法机关提出立法动议，还可以运用否决权来影响司法机关的活动。其次，州长掌控着全州的军事大权，他是国民军的司令和武装力量的首长。他承担着统帅州的武装力量、维持全州正常秩序的责任。除此之外，州长还拥有任命治安法官而间接地参与地方行政工作的权力。但这种权力极其有限，他并不参与乡镇和县的日常行政工作，他也无权罢免自己已经任命的治安法官。
尽管人们经常使用“集权”这个词，但却很少探究它的准确含义。集权可以包括两种不同性质的类型：政府集权和行政集权。所谓政府集权，是指把领导、处置全国范围内利害关系和问题的权力，全部集中于政府或行政领导人的权力分配方式。行政集权是指把领导、处置某一区域范围内地方性事务的权力，全部集中于政府或行政领导人身上的权力分配方式。两种集权既相互联系，又分开行使，其区别之处在于，两者的管辖对象和适用范围不同。
强大的政府集权对一个国家相当重要，没有它国家就不能生存发展，更谈不上繁荣富强。行政集权的最大功效在于，它可以在特定的时间和特定的地区积聚起一切可以使用的力量。但是，我必须指出，行政集权会腐蚀人们的公民精神，会使它治下的人民萎靡不振；它虽然可以迅速有效地积聚力量，但会损害这些力量的再生，更会损害一个民族的持久繁荣。
政府集权与行政集权如果结合在一起，就会产生消极的后果。这是因为，在两者结合所产生的无限的权力影响下，公民将不敢真实地表达自己的所思所想，从而逐渐习惯于顺从这种权力。这种集权不但可以用自己的权力有效地制服人民，还能利用人民的习惯驾驭人民，使他们都成为顺民。
美国实行的不是行政集权，而是政府集权和地方分权。其国家权力的集中程度甚至高于欧洲以前的任何一个君主国家。与此同时，它的分权的程度也远远超出了任何一个欧洲国家所能够容忍的限度。在美国，每个州只有一个立法机构，而且只有一个创造本州的政治生活的政权机关；它也不允许多个县的立法机构联合行动，以防止他们越权干涉政府的工作。
美国各州的立法机关拥有的权力非常大。各州的立法机关是多数的代表，而多数又通常以理性的代表人身份自居。权威和特权都无法与多数拥有的影响力相比。多数具有可以为所欲为的权力，它通过控制行政机构的运转从而控制着行政权力的使用。
虽然美国实行的不是中央集权制度，但其各州却发展得很好，并没有自行灭亡。作为各州的政府，它们在一定程度上显得有些过于集权，并产生了消极的后果。州政府的过于强大给它带来了危险，它常常由于能够为所欲为而缺乏理智和远见。甚至可以预测，它的这种强大最终可能将会导致它的灭亡。
欧洲一些拥护集权主义的人认为，如果地方当局不善于管理地方行政事务，那就不如让中央政府替其管理更好。的确，如果中央政府是积极作为、富有能力的，而地方政府是消极无为、惯于服从、能力不足的，这种说法就是正确的。但是反过来说，随着中央集权的加强，地方当局则会日趋无能和软弱。
拥有知识和智慧、善于思考、维护自身利益的美国人民绝对不会允许这种情况在美国出现。我认为，即使中央政府是精明强干、明察秋毫的，也不可能做到完全了解国家生活的一切方面，它也有自己的力量限度。与此相反，团结起来的公民的集体力量肯定要比政府的力量更能创造出巨大的社会福利。在美国，人们从来不会服从某一个人，只会服从正义或法律。
他们相信个人的努力与社会力量的结合会产生强大的力量，这种力量可以完成最集权、最强大的政府也完不成的工作。在我们这个世界上，能够使一个国家的所有公民持久地向同一目标奋斗前进的只有两种伟大的事物——爱国主义和宗教。人民所拥有的真正强大的力量是他们的意志的自由联合。美国的地方分权产生了一个重要的政治效果——爱国主义，这一点非常值得称赞。祖国是人人关心的对象，人们到处都能感受到祖国的存在。美国人像关心自己的个人利益一样关心着国家的每一项利益。他们以国家的光荣而自豪，他们愿意为国家的发展做出自己的贡献，因为他们认为自己也会随着国家的兴旺而兴旺，他们会从国家的繁荣中获得好处。
美国人把地方自由作为美国保持强大和繁荣发展的首要原因。有两种人希望推动地方自由的发展，一种是对政府专制感到恐惧的人，另外一种是害怕人民造反的人。同时，也只有两个地方才会否认实行地方自由制度的好处，一个是自治制度没有得到充分发展的地方，一个就是根本就没有实行自治制度的地方。这就表明，只有不了解地方自治制度的人们和地区才会否定和批判这一制度。总体而言，我认为地方分权制度对于所有国家都是有益的，尤其是一个民主的社会最迫切需要的。因为在小事情上都没有学会使用民主的公民是不可能在大事情上运用民主的，软弱无权、未被任何共同利益联合起来的人民是不可能抵抗暴政的，社会情况不民主的国家面临行政集权束缚的危险要比社会情况民主的国家更大。
总的来说，司法权主要有三大特征：第一，只能对上诉的案件进行裁判。第二，只能对具体案件进行审理，不能审判一般原则。直接对一般原则进行审判和评价超出了国家授予法官的职权范围，也不是司法权的内容。第三，不诉不理。只有向司法机关提出诉讼请求，司法权才能采取行动，它只能被动发挥作用。如果司法权主动出击，就会产生越权的问题。这一点也是司法权最重要的特征。
美国的司法权完全符合这三大特征。与其他国家的司法官员相比较，美国的法官在总体上并没有大的差别，只是他们拥有其他国家法官所没有的重要的政治权力。这项权力是，法官可以不使用在他看来是违宪的法律。这是因为，美国人认为法官作出判决是根据宪法，而不是其他法律。所有美国的个人、政党均承认法官的这项权力，没人对此提出异议。
宪法在美国的法律体系中居于首位，具有最高权威，它凝聚着所有美国人的意志，公民、立法者和司法者都必须遵守。与此同时，宪法在美国也是可以修改的。只要依照规定的程序和条件，宪法就可以根据公民或立法者的意见被修改。
美国的法官拥有的这项可以拒绝把违宪的法律作为依据的权力，这对美国社会的发展带来了重大政治影响。只要法官在审理案件中拒绝使用某项法律，那么，这项法律就会开始丧失效力。而从此时起，因这项法律利益受到损害的公民也就开始寻找方法不去履行这项法律规定的应尽义务，以致此类诉讼案件开始增加，而该项法律也将变得无力。最终，两种结果中肯定会有一种必然出现，即要么由人民修改宪法，要么由立法机构宣布废除这项法律。
当然，美国人在授予法院废除法律这个特殊的权力的同时，他们也准备好了限制这项权力的办法。这就是——当法院判决公民强制服从时，公民可以通过司法途径进行抵制，因而减少了这项权力在行使过程中可能存在的弊端。除此之外，法官行使该权力时会产生其他的消极后果。比如，当他独立行动抵制某项法律或是弹劾立法者时，他就完全踏上了政治舞台，变成某一政党的支持者或反对者，从而激发更多的人参加战斗。
美国的公职人员处于各种监督之下。所有公民都可以依据法律授予的权力向法院控告公职人员，所有法官都可以依据法定权力审判违法的公职人员。法院所拥有的这项权力并非是一项额外的特权，从根本上来说，它不过是法院在行使其惩治犯罪的固有权力。美国让全体公职人员对法院负责，并未削弱政府的权限，反而使政府更加注重自律、提高工作，并因此使政府应当享有的尊重得到加强。
政治审判从根本上来说，就是由暂时掌握审判权的政治团体对其他人所进行的审判。美国在法律中规定了政治审判，众议院享有上诉权，但它只能向参议院控告公职人员；参议员享有判决权，但只能查封众议院追诉的财物。
美国的政治审判的判决内容，被限制在严格的范围之内，只能剥夺罪犯原来担任的公职和判决他以后不得再担任任何公职，没有对罪犯作出其他判罚的权力。政治判决内容之外的内容是普通法院的职责，要由普通法院进行审理。与此不同，欧洲的政治审判却可以直接援引刑法条款。
美国的政治审判表面上是司法行为，这是因为参议院是根据普通法的规定进行判决的，它必须要由众议院履行司法手续，必须遵守应有的诉讼程序。但从本质上来看，这种政治审判其实是行政措施，它的目的是剥夺违法官员所拥有的权力，判决结果会让受罚者从此失去再取得这种权力的机会。换句话说，这种行政措施被带上了司法判决的表现形式。
在美国，除了作出行政撤职判罚，政治审判不能再进行其他惩处。它只能打击渎职犯罪的人，不能适用于其他公民，它既不令人生畏，又效果不大。也正是基于这一点，美国的立法机关并没有把政治审判作为防治重大社会弊端的万应良方，而只是把它作为政府的一种普通的管理手段。
但在我看来，防止立法暴政并不是美国的政治审判不能作出刑事判决的真正目的，防止立法暴政产生消极可怕的后果才是其真正目的。在美国的多数所拥有的武器中，有史以来最强大的一个就是政治审判。
通过独立革命，美洲大陆的十三个殖民地摆脱了英国的统治，这些殖民地在很多方面具有相同特征，如相同的宗教、语言、民情、法律原则和斗争经历等。这些条件已经促使它们联合起来建立一个单一的独立国家。但是，这种状况并没有顺利出现。独立自主和自治的历史传统对此产生了障碍。这些殖民地各自都有独立的政府，并已形成自己特有的利益和习惯。它们对会使他们失去各自的重要性的坚固而完整的联合表示反感。
是联合还是分裂，这两种互相矛盾的选择在当时出现。最终，自独立革命以来所产生的战争的现实需要让联合的选择获得了胜利。虽然建立这种联合的法律基础并不算雄厚，但并没有阻止联合的继续。但到革命结束、缔结和约后，最初立法的缺点便立即暴露出来，国家好像一下子就解体了。原有的殖民地又要求享有完全的主权，成为独立的共和国。联邦政府变得软弱无力，面临毁灭的危险，迫不得已向宪制权求救。
美国的第一部联邦宪法存在着一些缺陷，但幸运的是，制定这部宪法的杰出的美国人还都健在。这些当时美国最有智慧、最高尚的人们聚集到一起，召开了以乔治·华盛顿为主席的制宪会议，负责起草了美国的第二部宪法。最终所有的州都相继接受了这部至今还在治理着美国的宪法。经过两年空白期，1789年，新的联邦政府开始工作。
联邦制国家建立以后，美国人必须要解决面临的一个复杂难题，那就是如何科学划分联邦政府和各州政府的权力。顺利解决这个难题可不是一件容易的事。必须要使划分的结果既能保证各州独立自主地处理本州事务，又能保证联邦政府维护联邦的完整统一，有效处理国家事务。因为成立联邦的目的就是为了解决某些涉及全国性的重大事务，所以联邦政府的权力和义务比较简单且容易界定；而州政府直接深入到了社会生活的一切细节，它的权力和义务因过于复杂就难以界定。
最终，美国人找到了一个不错的解决方案，即明确规定联邦政府所拥有的职权，把除此之外的事项完全纳入州政府的职权范围之内。在立法上，州政府的常设工作是制定普通法，除非例外，联邦政府并不制定普通法。当然这一