A Sermon Delivered before His Excellency Levi Lincoln, Governor, His Honor Thomas L. Winthrop, Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Council, the Senate, and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the day of General Election, May 28, 1828

In Short

This work is a transcription of an 1828 election sermon delivered to the Massachusetts state government. It serves as a moral assessment of the American democratic experiment, arguing that because public officials derive their authority directly from the people, the character of the state is a direct reflection of the character of the electorate. By examining the necessity of private virtue in public life and the dangers of political factionalism, the discourse provides a timeless warning about the vulnerability of free institutions to corruption and the loss of civic standards.

The Story

The discourse opens with a candid acknowledgment of the political climate of 1828, grounding its arguments in the biblical mandate to select "able men" who fear God and hate covetousness. The speaker immediately establishes a distinction between monarchical systems, where the ruler’s corruption is a matter of fortune, and a republic, where such corruption is a "national sin." Because American officials exist only by the breath of the people, their moral failings are an indictment of the society that elevated them to power.

From this premise, the argument pivots to the role of public opinion as the primary regulator of behavior. The speaker asserts that laws are merely "blotted parchment" unless sustained by the collective conscience of the citizenry. If a community ignores private vice in its leaders, it effectively dismantles the moral barriers that keep public life stable. He dismisses the common, "mischievous" prejudice that private character can be separated from public service. Instead, he posits that moral heartlessness in one’s personal life inevitably bleeds into public duty. He warns that voters are often easily misled by "bad men" who project a false sense of originality or brilliance, mistakenly equating a talent for mischief with the capacity for governance.

To illustrate the alternative, the speaker invokes the American Revolution and the foundational era of New England. He contrasts the steady, harmonious leadership of George Washington—whose greatness lay not in dazzling oratory but in the perfect balance of his virtues—with the potential for a "Cromwellian" demagogue to seize power during times of instability. He argues that Washington’s success was built on a foundation of reliability and principle that stabilized a fragile, post-revolutionary society.

The narrative arc then shifts to the contemporary threats facing the republic: the rise of toxic partisanship and the degradation of political discourse. The speaker laments that elections have become contests of party machinery rather than inquiries into honesty and capability. He criticizes the modern press for abandoning sober analysis in favor of "vulgar and unfounded abuse," which he fears will drive honorable citizens away from public service entirely. The result, he suggests, is a state where the "feverish life" of an politician offers nothing but potential ruin, discouraging the virtuous from serving.

The sermon concludes with a direct charge to the assembled Governor and legislature. He reminds them that their legitimacy rests on maintaining the moral and religious institutions of the Commonwealth. He ends on a sobering note, acknowledging that all earthly governments contain "the seeds of decay." He leaves his audience with the reminder that liberty is not guaranteed; it requires a perpetual vigilance and an ultimate, humble reliance on a higher moral authority to prevent the eventual collapse of the American experiment.

How It Unfolds

The burden of choice The speaker argues that in a republic, the people are uniquely responsible for the character of their leaders. He insists that this accountability makes the election of unworthy men a "national sin" rather than a mere stroke of bad luck.

The tether of public opinion He posits that the practical standard of virtue in any society is set by the consensus of its citizens. If society tolerates vice in its representatives, it forfeits the moral restraint necessary to maintain the rule of law.

The myth of the brilliant rogue The text warns against the tendency of the public to mistake eccentricity or "paradoxical" behavior for greatness. He argues that bad men often gain a reputation for genius simply because they strike away from the common track, while the truly capable are overlooked.

The Washington standard By holding up George Washington as the paragon of American leadership, he defines true greatness as the "exact proportions" and "perfect harmony" of character. He argues that this steady, quiet consistency was the only thing preventing the young nation from dissolving into chaos.

The danger of faction The final movement analyzes how political parties, while useful as a check on power, become destructive when they ignore the fundamental question of character. He warns that voters who become tools of "intriguing demagogues" inadvertently dismantle the very freedoms they seek to protect.

The People

The text focuses less on specific biographical individuals and more on the archetypal figures who define a republic. The "Candidate" is the primary subject of concern; the speaker warns that the current climate favors those who are "hollow and artful" over those who possess the "solid and useful" qualities required for true governance. The "Demagogue" is the shadow figure, an ambitious actor who manipulates popular discontent and party impulses for selfish purposes, successfully deceiving the public into mistaking his lack of principle for a form of bold originality.

George Washington serves as the moral anchor of the discourse. He is portrayed not as a superhuman genius, but as a man of "exact proportions" and "perfect harmony." His function is to serve as a mirror for the current governor and representatives, forcing them to confront their own obligations to duty and principle. Finally, the "People" are the most consequential actors of all. They are the final arbiters whose "voluntary suffrages" determine the state of the nation. The speaker treats them with a mixture of reverence and stern rebuke, reminding them that their intelligence and virtue are the only true barriers against the inevitable decay of the state.

In Its Own Voice

"It is true, a corrupt administration is a national calamity in all governments; but in ours it is at the same time a national calamity, and a national sin."

(The speaker distinguishes the American system from monarchies to emphasize the moral agency of the individual voter.)

"Generally and practically speaking, I believe that men are just as good, as they think public opinion requires; and no better."

(This observation explains why the speaker believes the public’s moral standards directly dictate the quality of their leadership.)

"There is the more occasion that topics like these should be pressed in a government like ours, as it is essentially popular, and on this account more likely to be carried away by qualities that are merely striking and popular, in contradistinction to such as are solid and useful."

(He highlights the specific vulnerability of a popular government to superficiality.)

What It's Really About

The central argument is that the health of a democracy is inseparable from the private moral constitution of its citizens. The text probes the unsettling question of whether a free people can actually sustain their own liberty, or if they are doomed to be seduced by the spectacle of "striking" but unprincipled leaders. It argues that a republic is essentially a fragile, moral contract; when the public stops demanding honesty and capability, the government loses its "official dignity." The underlying anxiety is that liberty is not a permanent state, but a precarious one that requires a constant, strenuous commitment to "solid and useful" virtues, without which the government will inevitably succumb to the "seeds of decay."

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of American political thought, or those who find themselves frustrated by the tone of modern partisan debates, will find this sermon remarkably resonant. It reads like a snapshot of a young nation grappling with the exact anxieties that persist today: how to balance party loyalty with personal integrity, how to judge a candidate’s character, and how a media-driven culture impacts the quality of governance.

The prose is refined, dignified, and occasionally biting, reflecting the formal oratorical style of the early 19th century. Modern readers may find the vocabulary slightly elevated and the religious framing dense, but the core arguments are stripped of unnecessary jargon. It is a brief, intense experience that avoids the "fearfully long and fearfully dull" style the author explicitly promises to avoid. You will likely walk away from it reflecting on how much has changed in our political technology, and how little has changed in the fundamental human temptations that threaten to undo a republic. It is a sharp, sobering reminder that the "majesty of the nation" is only as stable as the standard of character we set for those we choose to represent us.