Does power really corrupt?
Not that this study isn&#x27;t interesting, but Lord Acton was really talking about how powerful people corrupt <i>us</i>.<p>&#x27;&#x27;&#x27;
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences during the rulers&#x27; lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which . . . the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, . . . but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science....
&#x27;&#x27;&#x27;<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;history.hanover.edu&#x2F;courses&#x2F;excerpts&#x2F;165acton.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;history.hanover.edu&#x2F;courses&#x2F;excerpts&#x2F;165acton.html</a><p>What is he getting at? We&#x27;d hang Mary and forgive Elizabeth for the same crimes, so we&#x27;re corrupted by the powerful. I think the the leading presidential candidates of both major U.S. parties shows this to be true.