The manner in which Congress is constituted ought alone to suffice to show that our polity is thoroughly anti-democratic.  The House of Representatives has the appearance of being a popular body; but a popular body it is not, in any extended sense.  The right to vote for members of the House is restricted, in some States essentially so.  As matters stood during the whole period between the first election of Representatives and the closing days of 1860, a large number of members were chosen as representatives of property in men, a number sufficiently large to decide the issue of more than one great political question.  In the Congress that met in December, 1859, the last Congress of the old regime, one eleventh part of the Representatives, or thereabout, represented slaves!  Could anything be more opposed to democratic ideas than such a basis of representation as that?  Does any one suppose it would be possible to incorporate into a democratic constitution that should be formed for a European nation a provision giving power in the legislature to men because they were slaveholders, allowing them to treat their slaves as beasts from one point of view, and to regard them as men and women from another point of view?  Even in the Free States, and down to recent times, large numbers of men have been excluded from voting for Members of Congress because of the closeness of State laws.  At this very time, the State of Rhode Island—­a State which in opinion has almost invariably been in advance of her sisters—­maintains a suffrage-system that is considered illiberal, if not odious, in Massachusetts; and Massachusetts herself is very careful to guard the polls so jealously that she will not allow any man to vote who does not pay roundly for the “privilege” of voting, while she provides other securities that operate so stringently as sometimes to exclude even men who have paid their money.  Universal suffrage exists nowhere in the United States, nor has its introduction ever been proposed in any part of this country.  The French imperial system of voting approaches much nearer to universality than anything that ever has been known in America; and yet England manages to get along tolerably well with her imperial and democratic neighbor.  Perhaps imperialism sweetens democracy for her, just as democracy salts imperialism in France.

But our House of Representatives, as originally constituted, was a democratic body, when compared with “the upper chamber,” the Senate.  The very existence of an “upper chamber” was an invasion of democratic ideas.  If the people are right, why institute a body expressly for the purpose of checking their operations?  Yet, in making our Constitution, not only was such a body instituted, but it was rendered as anti-democratic and as aristocratical as it could possibly be made.  Its members were limited to two from each State, so that perfect equality between the States existed in the Senate, though one State might have four million inhabitants, and its neighbor