Skip to main content

Full text of "American democracy; its history and problems"

See other formats




Class _:. 

Copyright N*"—---^ 



Long as thine art shall love true love, 
Long as thy science truth shall know, 
Long as thine eagle harms no dove, 
Long as thy law by law shall grow, 
Long as thy God is God above, 
Thy brother every man below, 
So long, dear land of all my love. 
Thy name shall shine, thy fame shall glow. 

From The Centennial Ode {1876) by Sidney Lanier. 
Copyright 1891, Charles Scribner's Sons. 





East High ScJiool, Minneapolis, Minnesota 









Copyright, 1921 






OCT 18 1921 



"Education, of the kind which is of any practical value 
in the government of a nation, means the teaching of 
human motives, of humanizing ideas, of some system 
whereby the majority of electors can distinguish the 
qualities of honesty and common-sense in the candidate 
t]jey wish to elect. I do not pretend to say what that 
system may be, but I assert that no education which does 
not lead to that kind of knowledge is of any practical 
use to the voting majority of a constitutionally governed 
country." — F. M. Crawfmd. 



Purpose of This Book xiii 

Summaries of Chapters xvii 

Books for Special Readings xxxv 

Introductory 3 


I America's Governmental Inheritance from 

Saxon and Medieval England . . .11 

II America's Governmental Inheritance from 

Modern England ^ . 32 

III Governmental Development in America 

IV The Great Documents of Liberty . 

V The Making of the Constitution of the 
United States 




VI The Government of the United States . 112 

VII Great Movements that Influenced Pop- 
ular Government in the United States . 131 

VIII The Great American Statesmen . . . .153 

IX Authors Who Helped to Make the Amer- 
ican Ideal 17^^ 

X The French Revolution and Afterwards . 188 

XI The Government of Germany .... 212 




XII Revolutionary Theories of Government 

AND Economic Relations . . , . . 234 

XIII The Great War — Causes and Preliminary 

Conditions 250 

XIV The Foreign Policy of the United States 278 
XV Citizenship in the United States . . . 300 

XVI American Ideals 316 

XVII Patriotism 335 

Appendix I Declaration of Independence . . 353 
Appendix II Constitution of the United States 359 

Index 383 

Capitol at Washington Frontispiece 


In the Daj^s when the King was the Dispenser of 

Justice 5 

The Committee on the Declaration of Independence . 6 
The great Trust now Descends to New Hands . . .10 

Alfred^ England's Greatest King 12 

Sections 39 and 40 of Magna Charta 22 

Officers Receiving and Weighing Coins. 1130-1174 . 31 

Trial of Weights and Measures, 1497 34 

John Hampden 39 

Gladstone Addressing the House of Commons . . 47 

The Opening Lines of the Pennsylvania Charter . . 54 

The Seal of the State of Virginia 57 

Hooker's Emigration to Connecticut 59 

Statue of Roger Williams 61 

Lafayette 68 

The Charter Oak 76 

King John is Forced to Accept Magna Charta . . .81 

The Committee on the Declaration of Independence . 85 

Signatures of Declaration of Independence ... 87 

The Great Emancipator 91 

Signing of the Constitution 98 

President Wilson Addressing Congress . . . .113 

A National Political Convention 122 




The First Philippine Assembly, 1907 129 

The Lincoln Memorial 130 

Thomas Jefferson .132 

Alexander Hamilton 133 

Tuskegee Institute, Alabama, 139 

Going West . 14-5 

The University of Virginia . . . . . . .151 

George Washington, Stuart Portrait 154 

Benjamin Franklin 158 

James Madison 161 

James Monroe 164 

Andrew Jackson 168 

Daniel Webster 170 

James Otis against the Writs of Assistance . . .175 

The Estates General, 1789 . . . 191 

The Tennis Court Oath 197 

The Frankfort Convention, 1848 218 

The American Peace Commissioners at Paris, 1783 . 273 

John Quincy Adams 287 

Pan-American Building, Washington D. C. . . . 296 

Medal Awarded to Henry Clay 309 

President AVilson and His Cabinet, 1913 .... 317 
John Marshall 322 


Sketched by Harry V. Johnson. 


North America at the time of the Treaty of 1783 . . 70 

The Colonies with the Sea to Sea Claims .... 73 

Territorial Growth of the United States . . . .144 

Europe in the Middle of the 16th Century . . .193 

Europe at the time of the French Revolution . .195 

Germany from 1871 to 1914 228 

Germany after the Versailles Treaty^ 1919 . . . 230 

The Races of Austria-Hungary . . . . . . 254 

Austria after the Great War 257 

Russia before and after the Great War .... 259 

The Balkan States 263 

Africa after the Great War 269 

Europe b.efore the Great War 275 

Europe since the Great War 276 

South America 285 

Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies . . 290 

The Possessions of the United States 347 


Map of France by Departments 189 



To help make patriotism vital and intelligent. 

To quicken the desire for active citizenship, efficiency 
in government aiid goodi will. 

To clarify ideas and ideals of democracy 

by enlarging the view of the historical growth of 

government by the people, 

by teaching the principle of democracy, 

by clearly showing that the years that follow the 

Great War will be democracy's supreme test. 

To promote an active desire for acquaintance with 
the present European situation and its relation to 
America and the world by constant study of 
periodicals, newspapers, maps and official pro- 

To make plain the numerous dangers that threaten 
the American ideal of government. 

To make the United States a real democracy. 

In a Word 

To make intelligently active Americans. 
In a government of the people, for the people, and by 
the people, the people must have clear ideas and 
ideals of the nature, history, and principles of 
democratic government that they may have the 
"will to succeed" in carrying out the govern- 
mental experiment. 

The usefulness of this book to the student of Amer- 
ican Democracy will depend entirely upon his definite 



desire to make himself an intelligent, active American 

When this purpose is fully determined upon, the stu- 
dent who necessarily already has many ideas about 
democratic government must prepare his mind for the 
reception of new material on the subject in order that 
he may relate what he learns to his previous experience. 
No knowledge is of value unless it can be organized 
with what is already known. 

As a help in this process of getting ready, the stu- 
dent should make a careful preliminary examination of 
what he knows of the subjects taken up under the chap- 
ter headings. By so doing, he will be made conscious 
of his own power and of his own needs and, as a con- 
sequence, his thought will become more purposeful and 

As a basis for more thoughtful consideration in the 
making of the pre-view, summaries of the chapters have 
been placed at the beginning of the text. It is earn- 
estly urged that every person who intends to use the 
book go over the summaries thoroughly before beginning 
the study of any topic. This will give a good idea of 
the field covered and will set up thinking on what is 
coming. When the student has gone over all the sum- 
maries, he should go back to the one of the first chapter 
and read it over, deliberating as he reads and recalling 
what he know\s about each topic suggested. 

Having cleared the ground in his mind by this pre- 
liminary survey of the knowledge he already possesses, 
the student will next proceed to study the chapter of 
which he has just made a pre-view. 

After the chapter has been read, and at least some of 
the suggested reading has been done, the student should 
return to the chapter summary for the purpose of assur- 


ing himself that what he has studied has become a per- 
manent possession. The same process of pre-view and 
review should be continued in the study of each chapter. 

When the book has been completed, the entire sum- 
mary should be reviewed so that the student may see 
what progress he has made in the study of American 
Democracy. Such a careful and painstaking method is 
recommended in the study of any book but particularly 
in the study of a book which has the definite and pur- 
poseful aim of teaching American principles. The stu- 
dent can readily see that in a democratic form of 
government, more than in any other, conscious, direct- 
ing public intelligence is necessary. 

It is also earnestly recommended that students learn 
the quotations at the beginning of chapters ; they may 
often serA^e as ready weapons in the hands of the intelli- 
gent American citizen whose knowledge of the history 
of democracy must reach far into the past and whose 
vision of the future should go beyond the confusion of 
the present. 

B. T. H. 



Survivals of the Early English Usage in the United Staters at 

THE Present Time 

The Moot Court 
The Folk Moot 

The Witan 

The Curia Regis 

The Ealderman 
The Shire reeve 
Trial by Jury 

The Petition of G-rievances 

Consent of Commons to Taxes 

Majority Rule Established 1429 
Limitation of Suffrage 1425 
Responsibility of ministers 

in The Town Meeting 

The Ward Meeting 

The District Meeting 
in The City Council 

The State House of Representatives 

The Nationa-l .House of Representa- 
in The State Senate 

The United States Senate 
in The President's Cabinet 

The Supreme Court 
in The Alderman 
in The SheriflE 
in The Grand Jury 

The Petit Jury 
in Bills brought before Legislative 

in The Right of Lower House to ini- 
tiate money bills 

— Still in force 

— Removed in 1920 

— Impeachment — Recall 

Privileges of Members of Par- 
Freedom of Speech 
Freedom from Arrest 

Privileges of Members of Legis- 
lative Bodies 
Freedom of Speech 
Freedom from Arrest 

Names to Be Remembered 

King Alfred 

King Edward the Confessor 

Stephen Langton 

Simon de Montfort 

Edward I 

John Grindecobbe 

William Caxton 

Events to Be Remembered 
Death of Alfred — 901 
Norman Conquest — 1066 
Magna Charta — 1215 
First English Parliament — 1265 
Majority Rule Established — 1429 
Constitutional Gov't Established by 
the end of the 14th century 

The Rise of the Common People 
The Peasant'9 Revolt — 1381 Serfdom in England ended by 

Jack Cade's Rebellion — 1450 1450 


A Short History of the English People — John Richard Green 

Any other reliable History of England 




The Tudors 1485-1603 The Stuarts 1603-1688 

Henry VII James I 

Henry VIII Charles I 

Edward VI (Commonwealth) 

Mary • Charles II 
Elizabeth James II 

All ruled despotically under consti- The people began to question the 
tutional forms.. They disregarded authority of their rulers and 

the real desires of the peo])le and all the Stuarts had to struggle 

established arbitrary institutions with Parliament for Supreme 

that were hard to break down Control 

Arbitrary Courts Unlawful Taxes 

Star Chamber Court Forced loans 

Court of High Commission Benevolence 

Ship money (Under Charles I) 

Important Events that Helped Toward Democracy 
1628 Petition of Right — Confirmed Magna Charta 

1688 Bill of Rights — Established Parliamentary Control of 

1832 First Reform Bill — Abolished Rotten and Pocket Bor- 
oughs and gave representatives to 
new cities 
1867 Second Reform Bill Extended suffrage to male house- 

1872 The Ballot Act — Vote by ballot instead of by voice 

1885 The Third Reform Bill — Granted practically universal man- 
hood suffrage 
1911 The House of Lords lost veto power 
1918 The Fourth Reform Bill — Granted suffrage to women 

Demands of Chartists — 18 48 

Annual Parliaments — 5 year parliament established — 1911 

Vote by ballot — Granted — 1872 

Universal suffrage — Granted — 1918 

Payment of Members of Commons — Granted — 1911 
Abolishment of Property qualifica- 
tions for Members of Commons — Granted 
Equal Electoral districts — Granted 

Advanced Legislation in England 

Municipal Ownership of Public Graduated Taxes 

UtiHties Unearned Increment Tax 

;\^J^T Old Age Pension 

Lighting National Insurance for Workers 

Local Transportation Insurance against Unemployment 

References : 

A Short History of the English People— John Richard Green 

History of Our Own Times — Justin McCarthy 

History of Modern Europe— Hayes, Hazen, Seignobos, Shapiro, West 



Colonial Assemblies in America 

The House of Burgesses— Virginia The House of Representatives- 
The General Court — New England The House of Commons— South 
Colonies Carolina 

Growth Toward DEMOCRAeY Helped 

by representative assemblies in all colonies 

by religious toleration in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New 

Movements Toward Union 

1643 The New England Confederation 

1754 The Albany Congress 

1765 The Stamp Act Congress 

1774 The First Continental Congress 
1775-1781 State Constitutions adopted 

1775 The Second Continental Congress 

1776 Declaration of Independence 

1781 Cessation of Western Lands to the United States 

1787 The Constitutional Convention 

1789 Ratification of Constitution 

1789 United States under Constitution 

Steps in Progress Toward Democracy 

The General Usage of Colonial Assemblies 

The Introduction of Religious Toleration as a Principle in a Few Colonies 

The Removal of Religious and Property Qualifications in New States 

Like action by Older States 
The Common People begin to hold Offices 
The Democratic Institutions of the West 
The Beginning of Labor Unions with Labor Programs 
The Growth of Education in Public and Private Schools 
The Emancipation of Negroes 

The Introduction of Referendum, Initiative, and Recall 
The Election of Senators by Popular Vote 
The Primary Elections 
The Introduction of "Responsibility" in Local Government 

The City Manager Plan 

The Commission Form of City Government 

Home Rule Charters 
The Passage of Woman Suffrage 


Burke — On Conciliation with America 

James Otis — In Opposition to the Writs of Assistance 

Patrick Henry — Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death 

Benjamin. Franklin's Examination before the House of Commons 

A. B, Hart's History by Contemporaries (4 volumes) 

General References: 

Histories of United States by Fiske, McMaster, Channing, Beard, Fite, 
West, or any other. 


Main Provisions of Magna Charta — 1215 

Fair and Prompt Trial by Jury Regulation of Trade 

The Right of the Council to Impose Removal of Unjust Tariffs 

Taxes Beginning of the Profession of Law 

Uniform Weights and Measures Equality of Freemen before Law 

Courts made more free Civil War made Legal 

Ov/nership of Tools by Producers 

The King's being made subject to Barons was the beginning of Parlia- 
mentary Government 

The Publication of Magna Charta was the beginning of Open Treaties 

From Magna Charta 

"Justice shall not be sold or delayed or refused to any man." 
Note: "The Taxing Power is the Sovereign Power." 

Main Divisions of the Declaration of Independence — 1776 

The Statement of Purpose 

To Justify action of American Colonists 

The Statement of Inalienable Rights 

The Right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness 

The Great Doctrine of the Declaration 

"Governments derive their just powers from the Consent of the Gov- 

The Justification of Revolution 

The right of the people to alter or abolish unjust government 

The List of Grievances 

The Declaration of Independence 

Emancipation Proclamation 
An exercise of the War Power of the President of the United States 

Minor Documents of Liberty 
The Provisions of Oxford The Charter of Rhode Island 

The Mayflower Compact Penn's Charter of Pennsylvania 

The Virginia Charter The Constitution of Virginia 

The Toleration Act of Maryland The Mecklenberg Resolutions 

Principles of Just Government 
as set forth in Philadelphia, 1918 

Just government comes from the consent of the Governed 
Inalienable right of any people to organize their own Government 
Kindred peoples should co operate for common welfare 
A league of civilized nations of the world should enter into a common and 
binding agreement to secure justice and peace for all men 


Liberty Documents — Mabel Hill 

The Oration delivered July 4, 1918, by Woodrow Wilson 



The Constitutional Convention 

The Two Plans 

The New Jersey Plan — a revision of the Articles 

The Virginia Plan — an entirely new scheme of government 

Special Work by Individuals 

Washington presided Gouverneur Morris revised final 

Franklin acted as peacemaker draft 

Madison kept secret Journal Mason and Gerry aided by 

Hamilton made issues plain Franklin fought against aristocracy 

39 members signed (representing 12 states), 12 members had withdrawn 
Randolph, Mason, and Gerry refused to sign 

Notable Absences 

Jefferson — Minister to France Samuel Adams 

John Adams — Minister to England Richard Henry Lee, and 

John Jay — Secretary of Foreign Patrick Henry disapproved of the 

Affairs Convention 

Men Who Helped Secure Ratification 
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay in the Federalist Papers 
Madison and Marshall in Virginia Convention 

John Hancock and Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Convention 
Hamilton in New York Convention 

Checks and Balances 

Congress makes the Laws — The President can veto laws 

The President appoints Supreme — The Supreme Court passed on laws 

The President and Senate make — The Senate has charge of Impeach- 

treaties and appoint Ambas- ment of President 


Original Purpose of Separation of Powers 

The English system of checks (now The American system to check "tur- 

obsolete) to check autocracy of bulency" of the people 

Common Results of Our System 
To give public opinion time to grow for or against measures 
A deadlock between President and Congress 
Nullification of needed laws by Supreme Court 


The Critical Period — John Fiske 

Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought — Patrick Henry, 1788 

On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution — Hamilton, 1788 

On the Federal Constitution — John Marshall, 1788 

Madison's Journal of the Constitution, 

Confederation and Constitution — McLaughlin 




"We must study the government with a view to discovering its useful- 
ness to the people." — John Fiske. 

The "Bill of Rights" of the Constitution 

The First Ten Amendments 

They forbid Congress to interfere 
with freedom 
of religion 
of the press 
of speech 
of petition 

They prohibit 

general warrants 

excessive bail 

cruel punishments 

quartering of troops 
They guarantee trial by jury 

They limit the federal government to powers enumerated in the Constitu- 

Changes by Amendments 

President and Vice president of 

one party, 1804 
Slavery abolished, 1865 
Negroes made citizens, 1870 
Election of Senate by Popular 

Vote, 1913 
Tax on incomes made legal, 1913 
Abolition of manufacture and 

sale of spirituous liquors, 1919 
Women given suffrage, 1920 

Changes by Practice 

Popular Election of President 
National Political Conventions 
The President's Cabinet 
Increased power of the President 

Changes by Interpretation Made 

The Louisiana Purchase, 1804 
The Establishment of a National 
Internal Improvements such as 

the Cumberland Road 
The Regulation of Interstate Com- 
merce as in the Pure Food 

Changes by New Devices 
Primary Elections 
The Referendum 
The Recall 
The Initiative 

"The Principle of the initiative and the referendum is democratic. It 
will not be opposed by any Democrat who indorses the Declaration of 
Jefferson that the people are capable of self government; nor will it be 
opposed by any Republican who holds to Lincoln's idea that this should 
be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." 

— Bryan 
Two best books by Foreigners on U. S. Government: 

DeToqueville — Democracy in x\merica — 183.5 

James Bryce — The American Commonwealth — 1888 

Proposed Changes 

Proportional representation 
Compulsory Voting 
Introduction of Budget System 
Government ownership of Public 

Utilities and public resources 
Curtailing power of Supreme 


Free Government Reports 
The Laws of the United States 
Farmer's Bulletins 
Political Economy 
Animal Husbandry 
And numberless others 

References : 

American Government — Magruder 

Contemporary American History — Beard 

The New American Government and its Work- 

-J. T. Young 



Political Parties 
'He serves his party best who serves his country best." — R. B. Hayes 

Principles of Democratic Party in 1920 

Low tariff for revenue only 
Greater popular control 
Against imperialism 
Against compulsory arbitration of 
labor disputes in private industry 

Recognition of any "stable" govern- 
ment in Mexico 

Private ownership of Railroads with- 
out public subsidies 

For the Versailles League of Na- 

Principles of Republican Party in 1920 

High tariff for protection as well as 

Narrower control of government 
Compulsory courts for arbitration of 

labor disputes in public industry 

Note: in 1920, the platforms of both parties stated the issues in very 
general terms 

A "Firm Hand" in Mexico 

Private ownership of railroads and 

Against Versailles League of Na- 
tions without reservations 

Socialist Party 1920 

Cancellation of all War Debts 
Dissolution of League of Nations 
Creation of Representative Interna- 
tional Parliament 
Universal Disarmament 
Recognition of Russia and Ireland 
Revision of Treaty of Peace 
Foreign investment at risk of in- 

Farmer Labor Party 1920 

Refusal of War with Mexico 
Non exportation of weaker people 
Recognition of Ireland nnd Russia 
Independence of our foreign pos- 
Abolition of secret treaties 
Public ownership of all utilities 

and monopolies 
Right of labor to share in industry 


Wendell Phillips said that the Emancipation of Labor would be the next 
step after the Emancipation of Slaves 

Cleveland, the first president to do so, dealt with Labor in a special 
message in 1888 

The Clayton Anti Trust Law passed in 1913 declared that labor was not 
a commodity, that labor unions were not trusts or combinations in re- 
straint of trade. This has been called "Labor's Declaration of Inde- 

The American Federation of Labor has followed a conservative policy 


Municipal and Government Owner- 
ship of natural monopolies 

The eight hour day 
The six day week 
Prohibition of child labor 

Workingman's Insurance against accidents and illness and unemployment 


CHAPTER VII (Continued) 

The Tariff 
The first tariff in 1781 

One of Alexander Hamilton's great financial measures 
to pay the national debt 
tx) carry on the government 
to encourage and protect manufactures 
Tariffs have been high or low according to the party in power 
Democrats have stood for low tariff 
Republicans for high tariff 


A school house plant on every hill 
Stretching in radiate nerve lines thence 
The quick wires of intelligence. — Whittier. 

First American Colleges 
Harvard — 1636 Columbia (King's College) — 1754 

William and Mary — 1693 College of Rhode Island — 1764 

Yale — 1701 (now Brown University) 

Princeton — 1746 University of Virginia — 1819 

Ursulines established first Woman's College — 1728 
(New Orleans) 

Article Four op Northwest Ordinance — 1787 
"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to government and 
the happ,"ness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall for- 
ever be encouraged." 

Federal Aids to Education 

Morrill Act 1866 

Provided endowments for higher education throughout the Union 

1885 Agricultural experiment stations established 

1917 Smith-Hughes Act 

Provides aid in vocational education in higher knowledge 

"The School is the one agency that may be controlled definitely, and 

consciously for the purpose of unifying the people." 

References : 

The Story of the Negro — Booker T. Washington 

Up from Slavery — Booker T. Washington 

The Expansion of the American People — E. E. Sparks 

Winning the West — Roosevelt 

The Oregon Trail — Parkman 

Contemporary American History — C. A. Beard 

The Making of a Nation — Francis Walker 

Industrial History of the United States — Coman. 

The Frontier in American History — F. J. Turner. 

Public Education in the United States — Cubberly. 



These Men Laid Moulding Haxds on the United States of America 

George Washington 

Military Leader First President 

President of Constitutional Conven- Initiated our government and our 
tion foreign policy 

Benjamin Franklin 
Secured Foreign Aid Negotiated Treaty of Paris (1783) 

Alexander Hamilton 
Established United States Financial System and thereby made possible the 
survival of our government during a critical period 

Thomas Jefferson 

His epitaph (v^ritten by himself) 

Author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Statute of Religious 
Freedom for "Virginia and Founder of the University of Virginia 

James Madison 

Author of Compromise that made ours a new species of government partly 
Federal, partly National 

John Marshall 
Expounder of the Constitution International Lawyer 

James Monroe 
Promulgated Monroe Doctrine which removed the New World from Euro- 
pean Influence 

John Quinct Adams 
A Great Secretary of State Fought to preserve the right to 

Kept the United States free to con- petition for redress of grievances 

duct affairs in her own way Defined War Powers of President 

Andrew Jackson 
Brought government closer to people 
Helped to preserve Union 

Henry Clay 
Initiated our friendly policy toward Kept unification by Compromises 
South American Republics Father of Internal Improvement 

Daniel Webster 
By Gift of Eloquence created sentiment in favor of the Union 

Abraham Lincoln 
Freed the slaves and saved the Union 

Other Men that Helped 

John Adams Robert Morris Dabney Carr 

John Dickinson Patrick Henry Samuel Adams 

Peyton Randolph Charles Pinckney Roger Sherman 

Dr. Joseph Warren John Jay John Rutledge 


CHAPTER VIII (Continued) 
References : 

The biographies of these men. 

Their own accounts in autobiographies, diaries, and letters. 

Washington — On His Appointment as Commander in Chief — 1775 

Farewell Address — 1796 
Hamilton and Madison — Federalist Papers 
Jefferson — A Summary View of the Writers of America — 177? 

First Inaugural — 1801 
Jackson — Second Inaugural Farewell Address 
Clay — On His Own Compromise Measures (1850) 
Webster — First Bunker Hill Oration 1825 

Reply to Hayne 1830 

The Seventh of March Speech on The Clay Compromise 1850 
Lincoln — The House Divided Against Itself (1858) 

The First Debate with Douglas (1858) 

The First Inaugural (1861) 

The Second Inaugural (1865) 
The Great Statesmen Series 

The Great Eimchs of American History (10 vols.) 
The World's Famous Orations — (10 vols ) 
The Men Who Made the Nation — E. E. Sparks. 


"As an account of the bold spirits engaged in desperate adventures, of 
the planting of the civilization in the wilderness, of the growth of free 
government, the sources of American history are a contribution to the 
World's Literature." — A. B. Hart. 

Books not Mentioned in Text 

Dr. Sevier — George Cable The Conqueror — Gertrude Atherton 

The Cavalier — Georse Cable The Honorable Peter Sterling — 
Hugh Wynne — S. Wier Mitchell Paul Leicester Ford 

The Crisis — Winston Churchill A Gentleman from Indiana — 
Mrs. Crew's Career — W i n s t o n Booth Tarkington 

Churchill Ramona — Helen Hunt Jackson 

Prisoners of Hope — Mary John- The Octopus — Frank Norris 

stone "^1^ ^Py — Cooper 

Cease Firing — Mary Johnstone John Woolman's Journal 

Life on the Mississippi — Mark The Story of a Country Town — E. 

Twain W. Howe 

A Son of the Middle Border — Ham- The Scarlet Letter — Hawthorne 

lin Garland The Rise of Silas Lapham — Howells 

Poems of Faith and Courage 

The Chambered Nautilus — Holmes The Eternal Goodness — Whittier 

The Ladder of St. Augustine — Thanatopsis — Bryant 

Longfellow To a Waterfowl — Bryant 

The Builders — Longfellow The Song of the Chattahoochee — 
The Vision of Sir Launfal — Lov/ell Lanier 

The Present Crisis — Lowell El Dorado — Poe 

The Vanishers — Whittier Gloucester Moors — Moody 



Development of Democracy ix France 

-Taxes and duties 

No local activity politically 

1614 — Last meeting of Estates — General for 175 years 

1643 to 1715 — Autocracy established under Louis XIV- 
imposed by king and council 

1715 to 1774 — Louis XV reign left France bankrupt 

1789 Louis XVI summons Estates General 

1789 to 1795 The French Revolution — Permanent reforms made in the 
first year followed by complete social and political upheaval. The 
land went to the people 

1795 to 1814 Napoleon Bonaparte, an autocrat, established equality be- 
fore the law 

1814 The Bourbons restored 

1830 Revolution — Constitutional monarchy 

1848 Revolution — Republic established 

1852 The Second Empire established 

1870 The Third Republic (which continues to-day) established 

In England To-Day 

The land is held by a few people 

The national debt is owed to great 

The people are actively democratic 
and restless 

The Labor Party in England is 
working on an advanced and rea- 
sonable program of democratic re- 
forms which tend toward more ac 
tive participation in local and 
national industry and government 

In France To Day 
The land is in small holdings 
In France the national debt held by 

the people in small bonds 
The rural people are passive and in- 
The French Republic is highly cen 
tralized. In the 88 departments, 
the policemen, postmen, and all 
local officers are appointed by cen- 
tral government which may dis- 
solve the elected council and order 
a new election 

In both countries the foreign policy is in the hands of a small group of 
governmental officials who are not controlled by the people in any sig- 
nificant degree 

Compare slow painful progress of England toward democracy with the 
more spasmodic progress in France. Yet in some ways the condition of 
the French people is better than the condition of the English people. 

The English Constitution 
England has never had a written 
constitution, PRECEDENT being 
her only guide. The latest law 
passed supercedes all other laws 

French Constitutions 
France has had eleven constitutions 

since 1791 
The present one, made in 1870, 

makes no mention of sovereignty 

of the people, an annual budget, 

nor a national judiciary 


The French Revolution — Matthews 
The French Revolution — Belloc 
The France of To Day — Wendell 


Conditions that Hindered German Unity 

Great number of "sovereign" states or units — 1800 at one time. 
"Particularism" — The German term for State Rights 

The Holy Roman Empire — a loose league of states each jealous of its 
"sovereignty " 

Forces Tending to Union 

Napoleon's harsh measures created a national spirit 

The Confederation of the Rhine 

The Germanic Confederation 

The influence of the Universities toward a liberal union 

The Frankfort Convention 1848 

The Forces that Made Germany Militaristic 

The rise of Prussia by means of the Army 
Reaction after failure of Frankfort Convention 
The Promulgation of the Prussian Constitution 
The Appointment of Bismarck as Chancellor 
His never-forgotten aim, 

To unite Germany by means of the Prussian Army 

The Steps Taken by Bismarck 

"Defensive" Wars The Ems Dispatch 

Elimination of Austria The Franco Prussian War 

The North German Federation The South German States come in 

Its Constitution Ratified by Princes The German Empire founded 1871 

Expressions of Autocracy 

James I of England — The Divine Right of Kings 

Louis XIV of France — I am the State 

William II of Germany — The Will of the King is the Supreme Law- 

Contrast with these the following: 

Edward I — What concerns all must be approved by all 
Declaration of Independence — Governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed 


Imperial Germany — Von Billow 

Modern Europe — Hayes 

Modern Europe — Hazen 

Reminiscences of Carl Schurz 

The Making of Modern Germany — Schevill 


Words and Phrases Much Used by Socialists 

The Materialistic Conception of History or Economic Determinism 
Surplus value The Bourgeosie 

Direct action The Capitalistic Class 

Wage slavery The Workers 

The Proletariat The Dictatorship of the Proletariat 

Russia is an example of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." The real 
"dictators" consist of a small minority who have seized control and expect 
to hold it indefinitely. 

Marxian Doctrines 

All wealth comes from labor 

The Church is and has always been, a bulwark of the ruling power 

Marriage enslaves women 

The family is an institution of slavery 

The children are the wards of the state 

The Materialistic Conception or History 

Denies the Influence of 

Socrates Jesus Christ 

Plato Christianity 

Greek Art and Literature The Crusades 

The Hebrew Idea of God The Renaissance 

The Ten Commandments The Reformation 

Extreme Socialists Moderate Socialists 

advocate advocate 

A Class War Education of masses in Revolution- 

The Revolution by Force ary Doctrine 

Sabotage Political measures — Gradual reform 

A Reformer not Necessarily a Socialist 
One may believe in 

The Nationalization of Municipal Ownership 

Railroads The Referendum 

Mines The Initiative 

Natural Monopolies The Recall 

The Closed Shop Graduated Tax on Incomes and 

The Minimum Wage Excess Profits 

Workman's Insurance Disarmament of all nations 

The Democratization of Industry The Brotherhood of all men 

and many other political and economic changes 

And yet not be a Socialist, an Anarchist, an I. W, W. or a Bolshevik 

"There are no political panaceas except in the imagination of political 
quacks. To each degree and each variety of public development there are 
corresponding institutions, best answering the public needs; and what is 
meat to one is poison to another. Freedom is for those who are fit for it. 
The rest will lose it or turn it to corruption. . . ." — Francis Parkman 

References : 

The Elements of Socialism — John Modern Europe — Hayes 
Spargo. Modern Europe — Hazen 



War not Necessary 

The Scandinavian countries have given an example of the possibility of 
the peaceful settlement of political difficulties in a sane and orderly way. 
In September, 1905, Norway and Sweden because of the desire of the 
majority of the people of both countries arranged a peaceful separation. 

A Successful Democracy 

Switzerland has on the whole made the most successful democratic ex- 
periment in all lines political, economic, social and educational. Two- 
thirds of her people are Germans, the other third French and Italians. 
All three languages are official. Yet no race feeling is in evidence. 

Sore Spots in Europe Caused by Forcing Peoples to Be Subject 
TO AN Alien Government 

In Germany In Russia In Great Britain and Ireland 

•Alsace-Lorraine Finland Ireland 

Poland Poland 

Schleswig-Holstein In Turkey 

In Austria Bulgaria 

Bohemia Serbia 

Bosnia Roumania 

Hertzegovina Greece 

The Versailles Treaty has made many arrangements that are more than 
likely to devolop into sore spots 

"No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's 
consent." — Abraham Lincoln 

Cost of the Great War 

Nine milMon lives; Two hundred billion dollars 
Machinery for producing wealth destroyed 
Moral and intellectual loss impossible to estimate 
Horrible condition of Europe morally, socially, economically 

Great Britain's War Debt 
The interest alone five billion dollars a year 

The United States' Loss 

Slight in comparison to Europe's loss but cos^tly to individuals 

Eighty thousand dead 

Two hundred forty thousand -wounded and horribly maimed 

Twenty-five billion dollars war debt 

General unrest and lack of morale 

References : 

The Roots of the War — Davis 
A Short History of the World War — Hayes 
Germany's Point of View — Von Mack 
Now It Can Be Told— Philip Gibbs 


Foreign Policy of the United States 

International law differs from other law in that there is no machinery 
for enforcing it but it depends upon the moral sentiment of the civilized 

The Covenant of the League of Nations attempts to set up the machin- 
ery for an international body that will have authority to enforce its meas- 
ures and decisions. 

A generally accepted principle of International Law is that a nation has 
right to decide its own form of government. 

Washington's instructions to Minister John Jay: "It is the President's 
wish that the characteristics of an American minister should be marked on 
the one hand by a firmness against improper compliances, and on the other 
by sincerity, candor, truth, and prudence, and by a horror of finesse and 

Jefferson said: "We have a perfect horror of anything like connecting 
ourselves with the politics of Europe." 

Main Points of Our Foreign Policy 
The Open Door Neutrality Arbitration 

The Monroe Doctrine Freedom of the Seas 

Encouragement of Republican Government Abroad 

Acknowledgment of De Facto Governments 

(Item from Associated Press July 14, 1920) 
Quiet Revolt in Bolivia I 

New President Takes Seat I 

"The revolution in Bolivia, according to a dispatch to the Nacion from 
LaPaz, took place quietly, with the aid of the army. The deposed presi- 
dent, Guerra, took refuge in the United States legation, the message 
.stated. Provisional President Savedera has notified the diplomatic corps 
of his assumption of power." 

If the new government is successful in maintaining itself, that is if it 
becomes a "de facto" government, the United States will acknowledge it. 

As a result of the Great War the United States has been compelled or 
will be compelled to face many issues that involve the other nations of 
the world. Among these are the following: 
Japanese immigration The Case of Armenia 

Mandates and the Open Door Recognition of Russia and Ireland 

Control of Cables Commercial Relations with Russia 

Access to Petroleum of the World A definite International Policy 

Find the meaning of the following expressions: 
"The Constitution Does not Follow the Flag" 
"The Doctrine of the Continuous Voyage." 


Washington's Farewell Address 

Clay — On the Emancipation of South America, 1818 

Bryant — His Welcome to Kossuth, 1851 

The Monroe Doctrine — A, B. Hart 




The Citizen Owes Allegiance 
To the United States 
To his own State. 

The Federal Government Controls 


Relations of Individuals to other 

Relations of Individuals to Foreign 

Quality of Food and Medicine sold 

to Individuals 

The trial of Individuals 
for Sedition and Treason 
Misusing Mails 
In Time of War 

The Federal Government controls 
the Individual Citizen 

All family relations 
Marriage and Divorce 
Custody of children 

The State Controls 

Property and industrial conditions 
Suffrage (until 1920) 
Criminal law 

Civil Rights 

Personal Security 

Fire and Police Protection 
Protection from accidents 
Freedom from necessity of testify- 
ing against one's self i 
from the quartering of troops i 
Property Rights 

To possess property 

To compensation for property i 

To due process of law in being 

dispossessed of property i 
To freedom from unreasonable re- 
strictions on use of property l 

Personal Liberty 

Freedom of religious worship 2 

of speech 2 and of assembly 2 
Right to petition for redress of 
to proper treatment by police 
to indictment before grand 

jury courts i 
to trial by jury i 
to a writ of habeas corpus i 
to a reasonable bail or fine 1 
to equal treatment before the 
law 1 

1 Guaranteed by Federal Constitution 2 Not guaranteed 

Political Rights 
To vote To hold office 

Rights Beginning to Be Recognized by Law 

Rights of children 
To a home 
To an education 
To separate courts 
To separate places of correction 
To develop individual talents 

Rights of Workers 

To a share of excess profits 

To a minimum wage 

To form labor unions 

To better conditions of labor 

To a reasonable period of labor 

Rights of General Public 
To protection from swindling stock To protection from strikes and lock- 
sellers outs 
To protection from profiteerers 

To efficient transportation systems 

References : 

American Citizenship — C. A. Beard 
Uncle Sam's Modern Miracles — Du Puy 
The Strenuous Life — Theodore Roosevelt. 



"There is no method of making democracy by machinery. The Gen- 
eral Will will prevail. The laws are usually below the level of the gen- 
eral will." 

Main Principles of the American Ideal 

Liberty of the Individual 
Consideration of the Common Good 

American Ideals 
Belief in 

God The Sanctity of Home 

The Dignity of Man The Compulsion of Duty 

The Sacredness of Life The Force of Conscience 

The Inviolability of Marriage The Binding Power of a Promise 

These ideals translated into Govern- They make the bases for our Tor- 
ment insure to individuals eign Policy 
Civil Rights Arbitration 
Property Rights 'Plie Monroe Doctrine 
Political Rights The Open Door 
"Due Process of Law" Friendliness to other nations 

American Principles and Policies 

No private alliances No unjust commercial barriers 

Government by consent Rediiction of armaments 

Openness of treaties Fraedom of the seas 

Conditions Calling for Re-Adjustment 

Economic Injustice 

Authentic statistics inform us that sixty-five per cent, of our people 
must be classed as poor, and that they become objects of charity through 
prolonged illness or other adverse causes ; fifteen per cent, are only fairly 
comfortable ; eighteen per cent, are entirely comfortable ; and two per cent, 
of our people hold three-fifths of our wealth. 

From the bill of Rights of the Virginia CoNSTrruTioN 

Section XV — That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be 
preserved by any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, 
temperance, frugality, and virtue, and hy frequent recurrence to funda- 
mental principles. — Written by George Mason 

References : 

American Ideals — Theodore Roosevelt 
The New Freedom — Woodrow Wilson 
Modern Democracies — Bryce 
Sovereignty and Consent — Macksey 
The Real Business of Living — Tufts. 
A World to Mend — Margaret Sherwood. 


For Chapters 
A Short History of the English People — John Richard 

Green 1-2 

History of England — L. M. Larson 1-2-10-11-12-13 

Source Book of English History — H. Holt and Co 1-2 

Liberty Documents — Mabel Hill 4 

History of the United States — Fiske, Cheyney, McMaster, 

Bancroft, West, Hart, Beard, Fite 3-4-5-6-7-14 

The Expansion of the American People — E. E. Sparks. . 6—7 

The Men Who Made the Nation — E. E. Sparks 8 

Contemporary American History — C. A. Beard 6-7-14 

The American Revolution — Fiske 

The Critical Period — Fiske 5 

American History as Told by Contemporaries — (4 vols.) 

A. B. Hart 

The Monroe Doctrine — A. B. Hart 14 

The Beginnings of New England — Fiske 3 

Old Virginia — Fiske 3 

The Making of a Nation — Francis Walker 3-5-6 

Confederation and Constitution — McLaughlin 3-6-7 

Preliminaries of a Revolution — Howard* 3 

Our First Century — Eggleston 3-6-7 

Struggle For a Continent — ^Parkman 3-6-7 

Building of Our Country — Southworth 3-5 to 7— 

Winning the West — Roosevelt 7 

Provincial America — Green 3 

European Background of American History — Cheyney. 3 

The Oregon Trail — Parkman 7 

Side Lights on American History — Elson . . . . ^ 3-5-6-7 

The Soul of the Black Man — DuBois 7 

The New American Government and Its Work — James 

T. Young 3-6-15 

American Government and Politics — Beard 3-6-15 

The American Government — F. J. Haskins 3-6-15 

American Citizenship — Beard 15 

American Government — P. A. Magruder 6—15 

National Development — E. E. Sparks 3-6-7-14 

The American Commonwealth — Bryce 6 

Modern Democracies — Bryce 6-10-13-16 

Democracy in America — de Toqueville 6 

Uncle Sam's Modern Miracles — ^W. A. Dupuy 15 

Life of Lincoln — Helen Nicolay 8 

John Nicolay 8 

Norman Hapgood 8 

Henry Clay — Carl Schurz 8-14 

Roger Williams — O. S. Straus 

Life of George Mason — Kate Mason Rowland 3-6 



For Chapters 

Gouverneur Morris — Theodore Roosevelt 8 

Samuel Adams — Hosmer 3 

Thomas Benton — Roosevelt 8 

George Washington — Woodrow Wilson 3-5-6—14 

John Hay — Thayer 14 

The Life of John Marshall — Albert J. Beveridge 6 

American Literature — Katherine Lee Bates 9 

A General Survey of American Literature — Mary Fisher 9 

American Literature — Pancoast 9 

A History of American Literature — Moses Coit Tyler. . 9 
Literary History of the American Revolution — M. C. 

Tyler 9 

Personal Narrative of Political Experiences — R. M. La- 

Follette 3-6-7-15-16 

Fifty Years of My Life — Theodore Roosevelt 7-15-16 

The Course of American History — ^W. Wilson 9 

Sovereignty and Consent — Macksey 16 

Brand Whitlock — Fifty Years of It 15-16-17 

The Story of the Negro — Booker T. Washington 7 

Up From Slavery — Booker T. Washington 7 

The Journal of William Maclay 6-7 

Life on the Mississippi — S. L. Clemens (Mark Twain) , 7 

Reminiscences of Carl Schurz 11 

"Marse Henry" — By Henry Watterson 6-7-15-16 

The Eve of the French Revolution — Lowell 10 

The French Revolution — Shailer Matthews 10 

The French Revolution — Belloc 10 

The France of To-day — Wendell 10 

The Making of Modern Germany — Schevill 11 

Imperial Germany — ^Von Biilow 11 

The Development of Modern Europe — Robinson and 

Beard 10-11-12-13 

Europe since 1815 — C. D. Hazen 10-11-12-13 

Modern Europe — C. D. Hazen 10-11-12-13 

Social Progress in Contemporary Europe — F. A. Ogg. . 10-11-12-13 

Modern Progress — W. M. West 10-11-12-13 

Tlie Governments of Europe — Ogg 

The Social Interpretation of History — A Refutation of 

Marx's Theory — Maurice Williams 12 

The Roots of the War — Davis 13 

A Short History of the World War — C. J. H. Hayes ... 13 
A Political and Social History of Europe — C. J. H. 

Hayes 10-11-12-13-17 

Germany's Point of View — ^Von Mach 13 

Now It Can Be Told — Sir Philip Gibbs 13 

A French Woman's Notes on the War 13 

A Hilltop on the Marne — Mildred Aldrich 13 

A Little History of the Great War — Vast , . . 13 

American Ideals — Theodore Roosevelt 16 

The Strenuous Life — Theodore Roosevelt 16-17 

Utopia — Sir Thomas More 16 

The Republic — Plato 16 

The Real Business of Living — Tufts 16-17 

A World to Mend — Margaret Sherwood 18-17 

The New Freedom — ^Woodrow Wilson 15-16-17 



The United States of America, together with the 
other nations of the world, has recently been through 
the terrific experience of the Great War. But though 
the actual fighting is over, the world finds that peace 
has not come. Even in our own country there is much 
unrest and lack of harmony. All thinking men are 
looking for a way to reach a satisfactory settlement of 
national questions that our people may assist " by 
example, by sober friendly counsel, and by material 
aid in the establishment of a just Democracy through- 
out the world." 

The United States finds herself confronted by this 
great task, which she realizes she must undertake with 
courage and calmness. She has come to see clearly 
that the American government is a great experiment 
that has not yet been fully worked out. She finds that 
in her own country as in the rest of the world, there 
is fundamental divergence of opinion as to the correct 
underlying principles of government and economics. A 
flood of revolutionary doctrine that urges the complete 
overthrow of existing institutions has become current in 
the United States as well as in Europe. The necessity 
for such an upheaval is not evident, for while the vast 
majority of people in this country see great injustices 
and imperfections in our economic system, they believe 
that conditions can be remedied by orderly constitu- 
tional methods without resorting to force. 



In order that the people of the United States may be 
able to contend with the revolutionary forces which are 
making themselves felt, and more particularly, in order 
that they may set afoot remedies for existing injustices, 
it is necessary that they become keenly alive to the issues 
involved, thoroughly intelligent as to the fundamental 
principles of government, and ardently active in bring- 
ing about needed reforms which alone will prove the 
sincerity of their desire for a better state of things. 
This will require a steadfast devotion to the principles 
of American government and entail a definite and sus- 
tained intellectual effort, not by a few people, but by a 
majority of the people of this Republic. 

In such a campaign of education, the schools are 
bound to play a conspicuous part, as the hope of the 
American experiment lies in the schools of America. 
Revolutionary theorists recognize the importance of 
the schools in forwarding their propaganda, and have 
es'tablished schools of social science to train their 
workers — " Sunday schools " for young people who in 
their daily lives will come in contact with others and 
sow the seeds of revolution. They have their writers, 
their publishers, their " modern " book stores. They 
aim, moreover, to get possession of the public schools. 

Against this revolutionary movement certain reac- 
tionary forces would like to use stern measures. There 
is much talk about " stamping out " the revolution, 
and of cleansing the public schools of radical teachers. 
This method of settling the unrest is not effective. Re- 
pression and persecution will not avail to eradicate 
revolutionary doctrine. It must be met by a counter- 
revolution which uses ideas and ideals for its strongj 
weapons. These weapons must be put into the hands 
of our youth, for while all Americans should receive 


training in the army of citizenship, the most effective 
and far-reaching work can be done in the schools. 

In the past, the schools of the United States have not 
directly taught citizenship, although they have taught 
it indirectly and have created a fine spirit of loyalty to 
the nation. Now they must go farther and teach 
young Americans to know the reasons for the faith that 
is in them. Patriotism can best be taught, not by 
pledging allegiance to the flag, but by knowing what 
the flag stands for, and by living up to the principles 
that allegiance to the flag includes. 

Among the first requisites for intelligent American 
citizenship is a fairly clear understanding of the history 
and sources of the government of the United States. 
These sources lie far back in the past and must be 
traced in a simple way from Saxon England through 
the Norman, the Tudor, and the Stuart periods, 
through the Colonial beginnings of the United States, 


Ik the Days when the Kiistg was the 
Dispenser of Justice: 

" To no one will we sell, to no one will 
we refuse or delay right or justice." — 
Section Ifi, Magna Charta. 



and from the Declaration of Independence and the 
making of the Constitution to the present time. In 
this survey, the American will see how slowly and pain- 
fully has grown the practice ^ of government based on 
the principle that " governments derive their just 
powers from the consent of the governed." He will 
need this background of information to help him decide 
whether, in his desire to make things better, he is will- 



' *'lv^^B ^^Hk? 





^; . s. „ ■ .^ / 



jp^^^' ,'■ 

¥na/:, ;:."-• 





■^ # '■• ^ 





i^"" ^fc;"^'" ,..:■ ...,j.. ,, : :-^^ 





The Committee ok the Declaration of Independence 

Thomas JeflFerson Benjamin Franklin 

John Adams Roger Sherman 

Robert Livingston 

From Sparks' Men who Made the Nation, courtesy 
of The Macmillan Company 


ing to risk a complete overturning of social, political, 
and economic relations. 

Besides a knowledge of the historical sources of the 
American government, a familiarity with the narrative 
of the making of the Constitution is necessary, that the 
future citizen may understand to how great an extent 
the framing of the fundamental law of our government 
was the arduous work of hard-headed, practical, but 
essentially patriotic citizens, and not a thing inspired 
and struck off in one great moment. He will find that 
the record of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 
is the story of a tense and vital struggle that was waged 
for four long months behind clos'ed doors at Philadel- 
phia. He will learn that after the Constitution had 
been given out for the approval of the states, the strug- 
gle for its adoption was no less keen than that in the 

Having become familiar with the narrative of the 
making of the Constitution, the student of American 
Democracy will study carefully the provisions of the 
Constitution and inform himself as to what they were 
intended to accomplish, that he may set himself to 
judge whether or not those ends have been attained. 
He will not be satisfied with a mere study of the pro- 
visions of the Constitution, but he will go further and 
find that in some particulars the Constitution has 
worked out in a different way than the framers intended 
that it should. He will learn that the plans so care- 
fully laid had to be altered in several respects almost 
as soon as the government had been set up. Finally 
he will look at the government and stek to find out how 
it operates at the present time and what its present 
tendencies are. 

That he may better understand the governmental in- 


stitutions and practices of his own nation, the Amer- 
ican will familiarize himself with the present-day gov- 
ernments of other countries, and compare and contrast 
them with those of the United States. For this pur- 
pose the American will study the present British 
government that he may justify or disprove the state- 
ment often made that the EnglisJi government is more 
democratic than that of the United States. In order 
to contrast the slow and sure growth of American 
governmental institutions with more violent revolu- 
tionary methods of change, it will be necessary 
to know something about the French Revolution 
and its influence in helping and hindering the growth 
of democratic government. It is said that the Great 
War was caused by a conflict of ideals ; that the United 
States entered it because the democratic ideal was in 
grave peril from the autocracy of Germany. There- 
fore the government of Germany must be studied. 
Revolutionary theories and schemes for making over 
society must also be studied that their danger to the 
American ideal may be made evident. 

In these days when there is much talk of " scraps of 
paper " and the sacredness of treaties, the clear-minded 
American will wish to know for himself the provisions 
of the great documents of liberty which are commonly 
referred to — Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, 
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of 
the United States, and the Emancipation Proclamation. 
A readiness in the reading and digesting of the con- 
tents of documents has become necessary to intelligent 
people the world over. No one need try to understand 
present world aff'airs unless he is willing to read 
thoughtfully and carefully the frequent official pro- 


nouncements of European diplomats as well as those of 
the President of the United States and the other leaders 
in our national politics. 

When the American has grounded himself in the 
history of the growth of his own government, when he 
has the different kinds of government clearly in mind, he 
will be ready to study the causes of the Great War. 
This will require a brief survey of European history 
since the Franco-Prussian War, a study of the great 
alliances — the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente 
— and an understanding of the situation that held in the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Balkan Peninsula 
up to 1914. In order to understand the neutrality of 
the United States during the first years of the Great 
War, it will be necessary to have clear ideas in regard to 
the foreign policy of the United States prior to 1917 ; 
in other words to know what is meant by the " Monroe 
Doctrine," the " freedom of the seas," " international 
arbitration," and the " open door." 

All of this study should help to make clear the rights, 
the privileges, and the duties of the individual citizen of 
the United States. That these ideas and ideals may be 
made plain is the main purpose of the study of the 
government of the United States, since the success' of 
the American experiment depends on the intelligence 
and good will of the majority of the people. 

Having gone carefully over all this mapped-out 
ground, the American should draw up for himself a 
declaration of faith ; in other words, he should put into 
plain language the ideals that underlie the government 
of the United States and should then see for himself 
how those ideals apply to actual cases, noting where 
they have worked out and where they have failed. 



When all of these things are fairly well in mind, the 
American is ready to ask himself exactly what may be 
his patriotic duty in the present crisis. He will find 
that to be an American citizen is no " short course," 
but rather a serious business in the conduct of which 
he must never go to sleep. The following book may be 
considered a primer for the citizen of the United States, 
containing but the rudiments of knowledge which it will 
take a long and actively intelligent life time to amplify. 

" The great trust now descends to new 
hands." — Webster. 



Freedom, the old poet says, is a noble thing; it is also a very- 
ancient thing. Freeman. 

It is hard for an American to realize that there ever 
was a time when people of enterprise and perseverence, 
even though humbly born, were not allowed individual 
freedom and an opportunity for advancement. In all 
personal matters the American Youth pleases himself; 
in affairs where others than himself are concerned, he 
becomes a part of an organization conducted under 
majority rule. The young American grows to man- 
hood functioning as a part of a body of individuals in 
the political organization of his town, his state, his 
nation. To meet, to discuss, to vote, to submit to the 
rule of the majority are the recognized and natural 
methods of carrying on the business of the club, the 
society, the city, the state, and the nation. 

In fact, the American people are so accustomed to 
the American method of carrying on affairs in which 
a number of people are concerned that they think very 
little about how it happened that the majority came to 
decide upon matters that are put to vote. Those who 
make up the minority accept the decision without ques- 
tion, waiting for another day to get their measures 
carried through, if at all. Yet the obscure beginnings 
of government by the people lie farther back in our 




history than does the principle of majority rule which 
is the common method of procedure in all governments 
directed by the people. 

H. Thornycroft, R. A. Sculptor 

Alfred, England's Greatest King 


At an early date a rude form of government by the 
people came into being in the European lands where the 
power of the Roman Empire had decayed. Certain 
features were common to all — the meeting of armed men 


to decide public affairs, money compensation for in- 
juries, the grouping of people into " hundreds," the 
great council to aid the king in governing appeared 
alike among the Iberians in Spain, the Franks in Gaul, 
the Germans beyond the Rhine, the Anglo-Saxons in 
England, as well as in the strictly Roman populations. 

As our governmental forms have been inherited from 
England, the growth of self-government in that country 
is of direct interest to Americans. England, the west- 
ern outpost of the Roman Empire, was invaded and par- 
tially settled after 449 by Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, 
Germanic tribes from the Baltic sea-board. Little is 
known of these early settlements as there was no record 
kept until Augustine brought Christianity to eastern 
England in 597. How much of the early British civ- 
ilization was purely Saxon, how much it was affected by 
the laws, the customs, and the government of the Roman 
Empire and by the order and cohesive force of the 
Church need not concern us here. The general condi- 
tion that prevailed is our chief basis of interest. 

According to the Anglo-Saxon records, the dwellers 
in England lived in villages and were divided socially 
into three classes — nobles, freeman, and slaves. Each 
village held its own meeting or " moot-court," where 
periodically the older freeman and nobles sat down in 
one place under a great tree or on a convenient hilltop 
to take counsel. Here disputes were settled, fines were 
laid upon those guilty of trespass on another's prop- 
erty, or injury to another's person, matters of common 
interest were discussed and persons named to execute 
decisions. If two freeman quarreled over a horse or an 
ox, the matter was settled in the moot court ; if one free- 
man hacked off another's arm, that also went to the 
moot court ; if certain members of the tribe advocated 


moving to another part of the country, a final decision 
on the question was reached by the same grave and dig- 
nified body. 

Thus the moot court had what we commonly call 
legislative, executive, and judicial functions; that is 
it made laws, carried them out, and passed judgments. 
However, there was no idea of vote-taking in the moot 
court. Things were talked over and agreed upon by 
mutual assent. 

For the entire tribe there was a larger assembly 
called the " folk moot," to which delegates went from 
the moot courts of the villages. The delegates, usually 
called " ealdermen," were not formally elected ; they 
were the chief men of the villages and sat in at the 
folk moot by common consent. Any freeman was 
welcome to attend these meetings. These self-ap- 
pointed delegates did not in any sense represent the 
people, but were guided by what they themselves judged 
best rather than by what the people wished. Gathered 
at the folk moot were the chiefs of the tribes and the 
oldest and wisest men of the clans. 

As time went on the general gatherings became more 
regular and more dignified. Soon, too, the meetings 
began to develop a more or less set form of procedure, 
especially after churchmen became regular attendants. 
A folk-moot must have presented a remarkable scene. 
Besides the mitered bishops, there were present long- 
bearded nobles clad in rich garments and decked out in 
barbaric ornaments, arm-bands and chains made of 
rings of gold. Presiding over all was the chief, or king 
of all the tribes, the most splendidly dressed and dig- 
nified man present. In this great assembly, matters of 
utmost importance were discussed, such as the election 
of a king, or a decision to make war on another tribe. 


Though the king was usually a member of the royal 
famil}^, he was not secure in his office until he had been 
confirmed by the acclamations of the folk moot. More- 
over, though the eldest son of the king usually suc- 
ceeded to the throne, if it was considered that he was 
unworthy in person, in mind, in dignity, or in courage, 
the folk moot might select a younger member of the 
family. In some cases the assembly even ignored the 
royal descent altogether and gave the crown to a power- 
ful and influential noble better fitted to be chief of the 

After the folk moot had come together for an elec- 
tion, the candidate's name was proposed, and if it was 
satisfactory, he was acclaimed the choice by shouting 
and the striking together of martial arms. If the re- 
sponse was sufficiently lusty, the candidate was pro- 
claimed king. If, however, there were murmurs of dis- 
sent — ominous negative sounds — the election was not 
valid and it was necessary either to wait for a more 
unified consent or to name another candidate. Only 
in cases of extreme disagreement, because of rival claim- 
ants, was it necessary to set up a second candidate. 
It is worthy of note that the candidate who was on the 
ground had a better chance of being named king than 
one who was not present. 

The early English did not feel any obligation to pay 
taxes to support a king's estate, though they were 
willing to help him with life and money when they were 
defending themselves and their homes under the king's 
leadership. They had no idea of supporting the king 
because of his kingship. As king he was simply the 
richest and most powerful noble among them and was 
supposed, in the language of the time, " to live of his 
own." In fact, the question of taxation to support 


the government in any form, a question that has vexed 
the world for so many centuries, was not one of the 
troubles of the early Saxons. 

In the course of time the Saxons in England began 
to be harassed by the Danes, sea-rovers of their own 
kin, who would come down suddenly on the coast towns 
and the river villages in their high-prowed ships and 
carry oiF crops, flocks, and women. These raids caused 
the Saxon kingdoms in 829 to unite into a more or less 
unified league, with Egbert, King of the West Saxons, 
as the overlord of the various tribes. Egbert took the 
title of King of the Angles, and the country began to 
be known as " Angle-land." 

Sometime during the earlier years of the Saxon rule 
in England, the large council of the kingdom came to 
be called the " Witan " or Assembly of the Wise Men. 
It was in reality the beginning of the King's Council or 
" Curia Regis," as it was designated in Norman times. 
The Witan assisted the King by approving laws pro- 
posed by him or by its own members, tried criminal 
and civil cases of importance, decided questions of war 
and peace, and named the successors to the throne. At 
first there seems to have been no formal " making " of 
laws. The Saxons were guided to a large degree by 
unwritten laws which resulted from customs and usage 
and which were enforced, if at all, by the people them- 
selves. After a time some laws were written down and 
applied to all parts of the kingdom. 

As the office of the chief king of Angle-land grew 
in importance, the carrying out of the king's work was 
left to the " shire reeve," later known as the sheriff. 
One of his chief duties was the preserving of " the king's 
peace," a special kind of peace by which the king and 
his officers, the king's house, and the king's highway 


were kept free from disturbance or attack. The shire 
reeve was frequently obnoxious to the people as is 
indicated by the popularity of the Robin Hood tales and 
the ballads in which the king's sheriff usually suffered 


Alfred, [871-901] England's greatest ruler, was 
acknowledged king by all the English. He tried to 
make the laws of the kingdom conform to the precepts 
of the Ten Commandments. He encouraged education 
and strove to bring about a better standard of living 
among his people. During this reign England contin- 
ued to be attacked by the Danes, and to buy them off, 
King Alfred caused the first general tax to be laid on the 
English in the form of " Danegeld," which literally was, 
as the name implies, gold for the Dane. That tax, 
once levied, was not remitted even after all danger 
from the Danes had long passed. When it was 
finally removed, another general tax at once took its 

The last Saxon king to hold the throne was Edward 
the Confessor. He tried to complete the work begun 
by Alfred and to set up an orderly code of laws which 
would establish justice to all men. Later, in Norman 
times, the people constantly besought their kings to 
restore the " good laws of Edward " that the kingdom 
might be brought back to the happy state that it had 
enjoyed in the days of the Confessor. 

The earlier kings, not only of England, but of other 
countries, were not mere tyrants who seized power and 
kept it ; they often came to their high office because the 
people wished to have a strong protector to look after 
their interests, which were often purely selfish. Kings 


were kings because of personal strength and fitness. 
Such a tiling as a lazy king could not exist. After the 
manner of Christian usage, the Saxon king at his coro- 
nation took a three-fold oath, promising peace to the 
Church, protection from violence to all men, and mercy 
and justice in his judgments. If he violated this oath 
or the customs of the country, the people attacked his 
person. Lacking any machinery for impeachment, the 
only recourse the people had was to cast the king into 
prison or to put him to death. 

Saxon England contributed a large measure to mod- 
ern, vigorous local self-government. As the local unit 
is the training school for democratic government, it is 
easy to see how the American practice of democracy has 
descended in a perceivable line from the days of the 
moot court, the folk moot, and the Witan of Saxon 
England. While for many centuries after Parliament 
was established, the bulk of freemen had very little to 
do with the national government, the practice of local 
self-government was never given up in England. It 
was the practice of local government which finally 
gained suffrage for all Englishmen, when the inhabi- 
tants of the great manufacturing cities realized their 
strength and insisted upon political justice. 

At the end of the Saxon period there was no fixed 
form of government. What there was of regular 
method was largely unconscious. While it is true that 
Alfred purposefully tried to bring the laws of England 
into conformity with Christian principles and that the 
bishops of the Church directly sought to maintain peace 
and order, on the whole, the development of law was 
largely the result of circumstances and the force of 
things as they were. 

Loyalty in Saxon times was mainly a matter of 


devotion to the person of the king. A king of a large 
and generous personality strengthened the nation be- 
cause the people were proud of him and in consequence 
came to have more respect for the country over which 
he ruled ; but the idea of nationality did not develop 
until nearly one thousand years later. 


In 1066 the distinctly Saxon period in England was 
closed by the Norman Conquest when the throne was 
seized by William, Duke of Normandy. William the 
Conqueror crushed Saxon England beneath his heel. 
He brought over with him hundreds of Norman-French 
barons, knights, churchmen, hangers-on, and adventur- 
ers. These French-speaking foreigners formed the 
upper layer of society, the Saxons being reduced, except 
in the case of a few powerful nobles, to a menial con- 

Under William the Norman, the government of Eng- 
land was centered in the hands of the King, and for 
a time, it looked as though the practice of popular 
government would be entirely forgotten. But fortu- 
nately that was not the case, for it turned out that 
while the Norman Conquest strengthened the central 
government on the one hand, it did not break down 
local government on the other. In fact, the two worked 
together in such a way as to lead to the final establish- 
ment of substantial government by the people. 

William introduced a modified form of the continental 
feudal system. Under that system each noble had his 
own subjects or retainers who owed entire allegiance to 
their lord. The King was merely the most powerful of 
the great nobles, who supported him with arms and men 
as they wished to. The people followed their lord or 


baron, not the King. When William came to England 
he made the people swear allegiance directly to him, 
not to the feudal barons. This was the first clear 
putting forth of the principle that the King was the 
source of the law. Up to that time it had been con- 
ceded tacitly that the people were the source of law. 
But though William made himself the law-giver, he 
continued the established custom of calling a great 
council of the realm, a body similar in many ways to the 
Saxon Witan. From this great council, called the 
" Curia Regis " or " Council of the King," has come 
nearly all the English governmental bodies, including 
Parliament — Lords and Commons — the King's Court, 
the Star Chamber Court, and finally the Cabinet — the 
present " government " of England. 


The four hundred years that followed the Norman 
Conquest, from 1066 to 1485, saw the beginnings of 
nearly all the English governmental forms. The entire 
period is marked by the struggle of three elements — 
the king, nobles, the freemen, — to gain power, recogni- 
tion, or civil rights. The contest was often between the 
king and nobles. When the king was weak, the barons 
grew strong. The people sometimes sided with the 
king, and sometimes with the barons, or strove against 
either or both. The people, on the whole, received more 
justice from the king than from the barons, probably 
because the king was removed from close contact with 
the mass of his subjects, while the barons, living close to 
the people, were able to make their daily lives wretched. 

The struggle toward government by the people is 
marked by concessions made by various kings. Henry 
I (1100-1135) granted a " Charter of Liberties " to the 


English people. This charter was nothing more than a 
re-afRrming of the Good Laws of Edward, guarantee- 
ing certain civil rights to all English freemen. 

To Henry II (1154-1189) may be credited the be- 
ginning of the English jury system. The King inaug- 
urated the custom of summoning certain " good and 
judicious " men of the neighborhood where a crime had 
been committed or a dispute had arisen to advise with 
him concerning the case. Curiously enough, the men 
who knew most about the case were those especially 
sought as jurors. In the course of time, a distinction 
was made between the "grand jury," which investi- 
gates cases and the " petit jury," which consists of the 
twelve men who try cases. 

John, the weakest and meanest of English kings, 
came to the throne in 1199. The barons, made strong 
by the King's weakness, waged incessant war upon him, 
until in 1215, led by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, they forced John to sign the Magna 
Charta, the Great Charter of English liberties. 

This famous document was not a setting forth of any 
new rights, but merely a promise to carry out law which 
had been long in force. The two most important provi- 
sions of Magna Charta are first, that the king may 
not punish or imprison his subjects as he pleases, but 
that each freeman of England shall be judged by his 
equals ; and second, that the king may not levy taxes 
without the consent of the bishops, earls, and lesser 
barons. The full force of the second clause was not ap- 
preciated in 1215, but in after years it became a strong 
weapon in the hands of Parliament. 

It would be untruthful to say that the barons and 
prelates, who coerced John at Runnymeade, were act- 
ing on purely unselfish motives with the thought of the 



rights of all men in their minds and with a conscious 
eye on future ages. As a matter of fact, they were not 
setting themselves up as champions of all Englishmen; 
they were merely seeking to secure for themselves cer- 
tain inherited privileges which John sought to take 
away. But they strengthened their cause by speaking 
for all the freemen of the nation, probably recognizing 
the added power that such a backing gave them. 

NuUus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut dissaisiatur, aut utlagetur, 
No free man shall be taken, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, 

aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nee super euin ibimus nee super 
or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor upon 

eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae. 
him send, except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. 

NuUi vendemus, nuUi negabimus, aut differemus, rectum aut justiciam. 
To no one will we sell, to no one will toe deny or delay, right or justice. 
Courtesy of Allyn and Bacon 

Sections 39 and 40 of Magna Charta 
The bars are facsimiles of the writing in the charter, with the 
curious abbreviations of the medieval Latin. Below each line is 
given the Latin in full with a translation. 

In the reign of Henry III (1216—1272), which was 
marked by a continued struggle between the King and 
the barons, the larger King's Council began to be called 
" Parliament." Henry required much money and spent 
it lavishly. He frequently renewed, and as promptly 
broke, Magna Charta. The barons found a champion 
in the King's brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, Earl 


of Leicester, one of the noblest figures in English his- 
tory. Under his bold leadership they forced Henry, 
by the " Provisions of Oxford," to employ a Council 
to advise him, to have three Parliaments a year, and 
to compel the three chief officers of the government — 
the Chief Justice, the Chancellor, and the Treasurer — 
to make a yearly account to the Council, by whom they 
were appointed. 


Yet in spite of these Provisions of Oxford, Henry III 
refused to rule according to law, and when in 1265 he 
again demanded money to carry on a war of conquest, 
the barons, led by Earl Simon, made war upon the 
King and summoned a Parliament in his name. Earl 
Simon invited not only the barons and bishops who had 
formerly met with the King's Great Council, but he also 
called to meet with this assembly two burgesses elected 
from each borough and two knights from each shire. 
These " commoners " were invited to sit in with the 
barons that they might help to devise methods of curb- 
ing the King and of forcing his ministers to render an 
account of their stewardship, that is to be " respon- 
sible " for their official acts. 

This date, 1265, is a great landmark in English his- 
tory. That first meeting, where sat elected knight 
and burgess, was the shadowy beginning of the House 
of Commons, the chief institution through which Eng- 
lish constitutional government has been developed. 
But the intrepid Earl Simon, like many another famous 
leader, failed to keep his party together, and in a battle 
against the King's army the great baron was slain. He 
died fighting bravely with the cry on his lips, " It's 
God's grace." 


Edward I succeeded to his father's troubles, but hav- 
ing been his great uncle's pupil, he used the people to 
help him against the nobles, and in 1295 he assembled 
the first real English Parliament, maintaining that he 
took this action because " what concerned all should 
be approved by all." 

In Edward's reign it became a fixed custom for the 
Parliament to consent to taxes before they could be 
imposed. Though this consent was largely a formal 
matter, it was a way of controlling the King. From 
this beginning came the present right of the " popular " 
branch of government to control taxes. 

Richard II (1377-1399) had an unquiet reign, one 
of the most notable features of which was the Peasant's 
Revolt (1381), or as it is commonly called, Wat 
Tyler's Rebellion. This insurrection of the common 
people was caused by the imposition of an unjust and 
very burdensome poll-tax. The revolt was put down 
with great cruelty after the peasants had been given 
little charters insuring them redress and removal of the 
tax. The faithless Richard showed himself such an un- 
worthy King that when Henry IV, the great Earl of 
Lancaster, seized the throne. Parliament readily con- 
firmed the usurper's claim. 


With the reign of Henry IV came a period of rapid 
political development, which was largely due to the fact 
that Henry IV had received the crown from Parliament 
and as a consequence was forced to rule strictly by law. 
He coaxed and wheedled his Parliaments into doing as 
he wished them to and by his ability as a statesman 
kept the royal seat. Parliamentary control extended 
to the ministers of the King who were named by Parlia- 


ment and forced to give a strict account of their doings. 
In this reign no taxes were granted without the consent 
of Parliament, " granted by the commons and agreed 
to by the Lords," being the phrase formally used in the 
money-granting statutes. 

While Parliament was a taxing body from the "first, 
its power to carry out laws grew with the attempts to 
exercise some sort of control over the collection and 
expending of taxes ; in short, from a desire on the part 
of Parliament to insure honesty and accuracy, that is, 
to fix '^ responsibility " in the spending of public money. 

In Norman times Parliament began to make laws 
in a simple way as a result of its habit of demanding that 
the king right some wrong or grant some definite con- 
cession in return for its giving consent to taxes ; to use 
the expression thereafter common in English and Amer- 
ican governmental affairs, they demanded a " redress of 
grievances." The " grievances " were at first some in- 
fringement of the ancient rights of Englishmen, or the 
failure of the king to keep former promises or to cause 
his ministers to give an account of their spendings of 
public money. Later they included requests for new 
arrangements that Parliament wished to have go into 
effect. These demands were presented in the form of 
" petitions," in the framing of which the Commons had 
recourse to judges and lawyers, who sometimes changed 
the meaning or made substantial omissions. The diffi- 
culty in securing desired legislation caused the intro- 
duction of " bills," which when completed and approved 
by Commons, Lords, and King, became " statutes " 
or the laws of the kingdom. 

The Commons could approach the King by means of 
the speaker of the House ; the individual Lords were al- 
ways entitled to admission to the royal presence. Dur- 


ing the Lancastrian period, the Commons themselves 
elected their speaker, but the tyrannical Tudors took 
the appointment of the speaker into their own hands. 

When it was finally recognized that Parliament was 
the source of law, the King thought up new ways of 
getting what he wanted. For instance, toward the 
close of the session he would bring in all at once a 
number of matters that he wished to have acted upon. 
Because of this crowding of the final sittings, the Com- 
mons at one time respectfully begged Henry IV to re- 
frain from this practice as they wished for an oppor- 
tunity to have " good advice " before replying to " most 
important matters." 

Impeachment was introduced when Edward Ill's most 
powerful ministers were tried by the House of Lords. 
During the same reign, the auditing of accounts be- 
came a national policy. All this time there had been 
accumulating certain definite "privileges" enjoyed by 
the members of Parliament. The chief of these were, 
first, that the speaker of the Commons should have 
access to the King " to petition, to counsel, or to remon- 
strate " with him ; second, that the members should bo 
safe from arrest or molestation during a session of Par- 
liament, and in coming to and going from the assembly ; 
third, and most important of all, that members should 
be allowed freedom of speech. This last privilege was 
a decisive step toward democracy, for when freedom of 
speech was conceded by a King, he acknowledged a 
power superior to himself. When they had become fully 
established any infringement of these privileges was 
met by angry cries of " privilege ! " from the benches 
of the Commons. 

In the course of time it became necessary that the 
members of Parliament should be men of independent 


means, until finally, property qualification kept all but 
landed gentlemen out of the Commons. In the four- 
teenth century, sheriffs and lawyers were excluded from 
Parliament as being specialists and, therefore, not in- 
terested in the affairs of the community! 


After the House of Commons was established, the 
method of election became fixed. At first everybody 
was allowed to vote ; villagers, tenant-farmers, small 
squires, shop-keepers, trades-people, and other towns- 
folk standing about " acclaimed " the nomination and 
thus made an election. If anyone present was strong 
enough and bold enough to object, other names were 
proposed. This went on for centuries until there be- 
gan to be distinct classes made up of rich and poor. 
The Peasant's Revolt was said by the wealthy classes to 
show the " insolent arrogance " of the peasant class, 
" everyone of whom pretended to a voice equivalent 
with the most worthy knight and squire." 

To check this " arrogance " on the part of the peo- 
ple, in 1429 the Commons passed a seemingly harmless 
law, which restricted the privilege of voting to those 
who had a free tenement to the value of forty shillings a 
year. Thus, at one stroke, after Parliament had been 
in existence for one hundred and fifty years, the greater 
part of the freemen of England were denied the priv- 
ilege of electing representatives. Thereafter a very 
small class claimed that political privilege as a political 
right. It was not until 1885, four hundred and fifty- 
six years later, that the wrong done by the statute of 
1429 was removed from the majority of the English 

In the same statute, the principle of majority rule 


was set forth as law for the first time in English his- 
tory. Up to this time, the practice of " general con- 
sent," which survives in the jury system to-day, had 
been in use. By the statute of 1429 the men to be sent 
to Parliament were to be " such as have the greatest 
number of them that may expend forty shillings a 
year"; that is, those candidates who had the majority 
of votes for the position. 


As the power of Parliament developed, the early 
English Kings found many ways of overstepping their 
legal rights by outgeneraling their assemblies, especially 
in getting money by special taxes without consulting 
Parliament. Taxes had been imposed on the English 
people from the days of the Danegeld. When that tax 
passed out, other legal " ancient aids, tasks, and 
prizes " were imposed to fill the royal treasury. Among 
these was " scutage," at first a tax paid for exemption 
from bearing arms, and " tonnage and poundage," an 
import tax on wine, beer, and other materials. Other 
sources of revenue were " forced loans," which were paid 
back at the King's leisure, if at all, and " benevolences," 
or solicited donations of large sums of money. Queen 
Elizabeth added " ship money," a tax laid on coast 
towns when England was threatened by the Spanish 
Armada. These irregular taxes the King levied when- 
ever he needed money. 

After the laws agreed to by King, Lords, and Com- 
mons came to be called " statutes," the King made use 
of a new method of over-riding Parliament. He would 
simply " annul " the statutes by wiping all obnoxious 
new laws off the slate almost as soon as Parliament had 
gone home. He would then notify the sheriff of each 


county that such statutes were null and void. And with 
the consent of his privy council, he would enact such 
" ordinances " or " orders in council " as he chose, 
under pretended or actual immediate necessity. The 
members of Parliament, having gone home, were of 
course forced to wait for " redress of grievances " until 
the King found it necessary to call them together again. 

During all this time, the courts had been taking form. 
One, the Star Chamber Court, was a secret court which 
passed judgment without jury or witnesses. It was 
first set up as a means of restoring order and establish- 
ing authority — a sort of court of " martial law." 
This court, under the Tudors and the Stuarts, grew 
into a notorious machine of ruthless oppression from 
which no subject was safe. 

By the end of the Lancastrian period, that is about 
1400, the courts, higher and lower, had been set up and 
were regularly employed. The rights of Parliament 
had also become fixed. It was Parliament's right to de- 
pose the King, to confirm a candidate for the kingship, 
and to control the King by controlling his ministers. 
To the Commons had been given the right to hold the 
pursestrings, that is, to grant the taxes. As the King 
could not support his state without a revenue, this priv- 
ilege of voting taxes kept an effective check on the ruler. 
But best of all, the right of a speedy trial by jury had 
become clearly a right of all English freemen. 


By this time a great change had come over the mass 
of the people. After the Black Death, a terrible plague 
which fell upon all Europe in the middle of the 14th 
century, the condition of the poorer classes had greatly 
improved. The scarcity of laborers gradually allowed 


them to exchange their services for money. The lower 
classes, serfs and peasants,, began to realize the in- 
justice done them and broke out into several well-de- 
veloped revolts. By 1450, serfdom had passed from 
England forever and all English men were legally secure 
in the rights of Magna Charta. 

The improvement in the condition of the people and 
the growth of the power of Parliament was checked 
in the fifteenth century by the devastations of civil 
war, in which for thirty years the White Rose of York 
strove with the Red Rose of Lancaster for the throne 
of England. During this period — as was inevitable 
— Parliament, having lost its great leaders, was shorn 
of its power, though it still retained its formal func- 
tions. By 1485, when Henry VII, the first Tudor 
king, came to the throne and thus ended the Wars of 
the Roses, Parliament had ceased to be the vigorous 
governmental body of a century earlier. It was not 
long until it became the ready tool of the Tudor sov- 
ereign. Then followed the period of the Reformation, 
that great religious upheaval which set men at cross 
purposes for long and weary years and caused them 
to neglect political privileges in the crucial struggle 
for religious freedom. 

But though the English constitution was a dead letter 
during the Tudor period, it still existed in form and 
was never wholly disregarded, so that when Parliament 
in the days of the Stuart kings roused itself to action, 
this unwritten constitution was evoked to help English- 
men get back the rights that had been acknowledged 
in the days of Alfred and of Edward the Confessor, that 
had been reaffirmed by John, and that had taken legal 
form and become well-established precedent before the 
Wars of the Roses. Piece by piece during Norman 



times the English people had set up the machinery of 
government that would legally secure to them the 
rights that at an earlier period had been recognized by 
common usage ; step by step they had moved toward 
surer justice, although the successful working out of 
their almost unconsciously well-made plans was deferred 
for many years. 

-'_y i 

r1^ - ;i44ir 

^- * 


Officers Receivixg axd Weighing Coin" at 

THE Exchequer, A. D. 1130-1174 

MS. Inn. Coll. Camb. R. 17, 1 



We have advanced by falling back on a more ancient state of 
things; we have reformed by calling to life again the institutions 
of earlier and ruder times, by setting ourselves free from the 
slavish subtleties of Norman lawyers, by casting aside as an 
accursed thing the innovations of Tudor tyranny and Stuart usur- 

"The Growth of the English Constitution," E. A. Freeman. 


Henry VII, the first Tudor King, was crowned 
on Bosworth Field in 1485. The Tudor period marks 
the beginning of modern England. The Wars of the 
Roses had settled the question of feudalism forever, 
most of the great barons of the Red and the White 
Rose having been killed on the battle-field. For a cen- 
tury thereafter, the Tudor sovereigns ruled as they 

The Tudor period is noted for the Protestant Refor- 
mation, for the rise of England in power, for great 
changes in the economic condition of the people, and, 
most of all, for the age of Elizabethan literature. 
Though the iron-handed Tudors cared little for the 
welfare of the people, they were wise enough to rule 
under legal forms. They never neglected to have Par- 
liament sanction all their acts, but they were very care- 
ful about the selection of Parliament. The matter of 

controlling parliamentary elections after the Wars of 



the Roses was easy. The Tudors adopted various 
methods of bribery that continued to be used in Eng- 
land more or less regularly up to the end of the eigh- 
teenth century. 

Henry VII was a miser and a tyrant who filled his 
treasury by a most ingenious system of taxes and fines. 
Neither the rich nor the poor escaped his net. He 
enlarged and perfected the secret Star Chamber Court 
which he used to seek out and try persons with whom he 
was displeased or from whom he wished to extort money. 
Since there was no appeal from the decisions of this 
king-made body, it is easy to see how it became an 
instrument of tyranny in the hands of a despotic ruler. 
Henry used it to assist him in demanding forced loans 
and benevolences, and in laying wholesale fines, until 
he had amassed the immense fortune which his son and 
successor, Henry VIII, squandered. After Henry 
Vn began to operate the Star Chamber Court suc- 
cessfully, he found Parliament unnecessary and did 
not call that body at all during the last nine years 
of his reign. 

Henry VIII (1509-1549) was even more despotic 
than his father. During his reign, the Protestant Ref- 
ormation entered England. The King demolished the 
monasteries, seized the lands, and bestowed them upon 
his friends and supporters. In 1520, after an interval 
of five years, Henry called a Parliament, which he him- 
self had selected. He kept this Parliament for seven 
years by the simple method of alternately proroguing 
and summoning the same body. It made Henry not 
only " Protector and only Supreme Head " of the 
Church, but also made it unlawful for a person ac- 
cused of high treason to plead in his own behalf, 
and forced public officials to take the Oath of Suprem- 



acy which acknowledged the king as the head of the 
Church. But though Henry VIII ruled most auto- 
cratically, it was always under Parliament's sanction. 

Trial of Weights and Measures at the Exchequer, A. D. 
Henry VII (1497) 

Velustu monumenta ; from a drawing formerly in the Harleian Library 

"Let your weights and measures be fair, your balance just, your 
bushel and your pint honest:" one of the "good laws" of early 
England which is not yet fully realized in practice. 

Henry VIII was followed in consecutive order by 
his son, Edward VI, and his daughters, Mary and 
Elizabeth. The whole period was one of religious 


persecution, first on one side, then on the other. Re- 
hgious toleration as a national policy was at the 
time undreamed of. 

During the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603), Eng- 
land, the little island kingdom, rose from a sixth rate 
place to one in the first rank among nations. In this 
reign. Catholics were excluded from Parliament and the 
seeds of future political discord were sown. Elizabeth 
established the secret Court of High Commission which, 
like the Star Chamber Court, robbed its victims of trial 
by jury on an open charge. Thereafter the sover- 
eigns had almost absolute power, as in these courts 
the enemies of the ruler could be quietly disposed of. 

About this time the New World began to engage 
the imagination of Englishmen and a few unsuccess- 
ful attempts were made to found settlements across 
the Atlantic. Sir Walter Raleigh made no less than 
three eff'orts to found settlements in Virginia, but did 
not succeed in any of them. 

For all the greatness of Elizabeth's reign, it had 
its dark and gloomy side. The poor suffered terribly. 
Their lands were taken away to be made into great 
sheep walks and the soil of England passed into the 
hands of a small number of great land owners. 
Misery spread all over the kingdom. Indeed, it is 
recorded that 17,000 beggars were executed during 
this reign for the " crime " of being destitute. 


The Stuart, James I, succeeded Elizabeth in 1603. 
At the door of this ruler, with his " Divine Right of 
Kings " delusion, may be laid a good deal of the 
trouble of the unhappy Stuart period. James was 
filled with the idea that the King, by the special pro- 


vision of the Almighty, was the source of power from 
whom flowed all law. When this small-minded King 
with his idea of Divine Right, found himself opposed 
by an intelligent Parliament, equally firm in urging 
that the King was subject to Parliament, a period 
of political stress followed. 

One great cause of trouble was the religious strife, 
not only between Catholics and Protestants, but 
among the various Protestant sects. James made 
laws against the " dissenters " who did not conform 
to the Church of England — Catholics, Presbyterians, 
and Puritans alike. In 1620, these harsh measures 
drove the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock ot^ the shores 
of New England. 

James I in his zeal to show his Divine Right, used 
the Star Chamber Court and the Court of High Com- 
mission in ways that even Elizabeth had not thought 
of. For seven years, he summoned no Parliament but 
secured an income by granting monopolies, and by 
obtaining forced loans and benevolences. He also sold 
peerages and invented a new title, that of baronet, which 
he retailed along with the title " Sir " at one hundred 
pounds apiece. He sold great estates in Ireland to 
absentee landlords, and " planted " Ulster with 
Scotchmen and Englishmen who were willing to settle 
there. Scottish Protestants in large numbers took ad- 
vantage of the grant and people from London founded 
Londonderry. This was the beginning of the " Ulster 

In the years following James I's accession to the 
throne, the first permanent English colony was planted 
in Virginia, under a charter granted by the King to 
the London Company. At this point in the story of 
England's struggle for popular government, the center 


of interest for Americans is transferred to those Eng- 
lish colonies that later became the United States of 
America. But a brief outline of the constitutional de- 
velopment as it continued in England gives material for 
comparison with the growth of democracy in America. 
The entire Stuart period in England, from 1603 to 
1683 — including the period of the Commonwealth — 
was marked by an almost constant struggle for con- 
trol between the rulers and Parliament. Religious 
persecution, a Civil War, the migration to America, an 
experimental period of " popular " government known 
as " the Commonwealth," all contributed to the final 
establishment in 1688 of the principle that the King 
of England was subject to the control of Parliament 


Charles I (1621-1649) had a pleasanter person- 
ality than his father, James I, but he was even more 
stubborn. He summarily dismissed his first Parlia- 
ment for refusing to grant him money. When he was 
finally compelled to summon them again, the members 
of Parliament, led by Sir John Eliot, stood out boldly 
against him and refused to grant '* tonnage and 
poundage " — one of the " accustomed dues " — for 
more than one year although this tax had heretofore 
been granted for the lifetime of the sovereign. At 
this, Charles haughtily sent the members home and 
tried to get along by levying illegal taxes, forced 
loans, and benevolences. 

When, because of war in France, he was forced to 
summon Parliament for the third time, the Commons 
forced Charles I to sign the " Petition of Right " before 
they would take up any matter of taxation. This 
famous document which promised freedom from illegal 


taxation, false imprisonment, and forced loans, was 
really a revision of the English Constitution to date, as 
far as the personal rights of Englishmen were con- 
cerned. Charles, hard-pressed for money, reluctantly 
signed this great state paper amid heartfelt public re- 
joicing and Parliament at once granted the needed sup- 
plies. But his needs having been attended to, the faith- 
less Charles made no attempt to keep his pledge to the 

The next year found the treasury again empty and 
the King as so often before was compelled to summon 
Parliament. But finding that the members were deter- 
mined to keep up the fight for constitutional liberty, 
Charles dissolved Parliament and ruled as an absolute 
monarch for eleven years, working through the Star 
Chamber Court and the Court of High Commission. He 
collected money by all sorts of means and sent a force 
into rebellious Ireland where a " thorough " program of 
coercion was carried out with great ferocity. Charles 
I with even-handed injustice persecuted both the Puri- 
tans and Catholics alike, so that from 1630 to 1640, 
ten thousand Puritans emigrated to Massachusetts, and 
in 1634, a large colony of Catholics founded Maryland 
under Lord Baltimore. 

Finally in 1637, the King levied " ship money " on 
all towns, thus directly violating the promise given in 
the Petition of Right. This ship money was a tax 
formerly levied on coast towns only. John Hamp- 
den, a country squire, refused to pay the ship money 
tax, and the case was brought to court. Though seven 
of the twelve judges decided against Hampden, the 
decision had the force of a victory since the people of 
the kingdom were aroused and many of them stood 
against the King. 



Threatened by war with Scotland, the King again 
summoned Parhament after an eleven year interval. 
The old struggle was resumed. This time the leader 
was John Hampden — Sir John Eliot, who earlier had 
led the opposition, hav- 
ing died in prison. Par- 
liament at once passed 
a resolution declaring 
that it could be dis- 
solved only by its own 
vote. Enraged at this, 
Charles I entered the 
House of Commons in 
person in an attempt to 
arrest the five leading 
members but he was 
forced to retire upon 
the Speaker's refusal to 
point them out. Civil 
War soon followed. 
After several years of warfare, the Parliamenta- 
rians, led by Oliver Cromwell, were victorious and 
Charles I was executed as a traitor, tyrant, and public 


The period of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate 
under Cromwell (1649-1660) followed. Since he did 
not have a united England under him, Cromwell was 
forced to use arbitrary measures to hold his position as 
dictator. His army was made into a military machine 
to carry on the government and when Parliament did not 
vote to suit the " Protector," as Cromwell was called 
later, he turned a regiment of soldiers into the house and 

JoHX Hampdek 

From a print by I. UoubraJcen 


" purged " it of members who were not pleasing to him. 
At another time he drove the members of this " rump " 
parhament from the hall where they were assembled, 
locked the doors, and put the key into his pocket. By 
this time he too had grown to believe that he was gov- 
erning England by Divine Right. 

Cromwell both as a man and as a ruler has been 
greatly admired by some people and violently de- 
nounced by others. While it is true that he instituted 
many commendable measures, his rule began to* break 
down before his death in 1659 because he failed to 
give Englishmen that for which they had so long striven 
— government by the people through their representa- 
tives in Parliament. 


After Cromwell's death, a period of anarchy fol- 
lowed until, in 1660, the Stuarts were restored in the 
person of the dissolute Charles II. This period counted 
little toward the advancement of government by the peo- 
ple, although it was in this reign that the famous 
" Habeas Corpus Act " was put upon the statute books. 
This law finally made Englishmen secure from false 
arrest. Because of the many pretended popish plots, all 
Catholics were shut out from Parliament with the result 
that for one hundred and fifty years thereafter, no Cath- 
olic sat in either house. Lords or Commons. 

Toward the close of Charles II's reign real political 
parties began to appear. Those who believed in the 
supremacy of Parliament were called " Whigs," and 
those who believed the King the source of power were 
called, in scorn, " Tories." 

James II succeeded his brother Charles II in .1685. 
The new King tried to restore the Catholic religion. 


This roused the resentment of the men who controlled 
the government. Therefore James II's reign was 
brief and inglorious. He could not manage Parlia- 
ment and he prorogued it from time to time until he 
finally dissolved it. Meanwhile, certain statesmen of 
England secretly negotiated with William of Orange, 
the husband of James's daughter, Mary, and presently 
offered him James II's throne. William accepted and 
with Mary came to England in 1688. Thereupon 
James II precipitately fled to France and sought the 
protection of Louis XIV. 


Before the coronation of William and Mary, a 
" Bill of Rights " was drawn up, limiting the powers 
of the King. This Bill of Rights, which insured the 
" undoubtful rights and liberties " of Englishmen, re- 
hearsed the main items of Magna Charta and added 
whatever was new and definite in the " Petition of 
Right." It reaffirmed that taxes were not to be 
levied without the consent of Parliament, that the 
King was not to interfere with the execution of the laws, 
and that there were to be frequent Parliaments ; it 
prohibited a standing army and billeting of troops in 
private houses in times of peace ; it reaffirmed free- 
dom of discussion. It added that England was a Prot- 
estant country and that the ruler of England and 
Ireland should be neither a Catholic nor the husband 
or wife of one of that faith; it disabled "Papists," 
Jews, and Unitarians from sitting in Parliament, from 
holding office, and from attending universities. 

In spite of the inconsistencies in this " Bill of Rights " 
and though deceit and selfishness marked every step in 
the carrying out of the Revolution of 1688, the results 


were important to the cause of democracy. The main 
points gained were four: the judges in the courts 
were made irremovable, even by the King ; an election 
for Parliament was thereafter to be held at least every 
three years ; revenue bills were thereafter to be for one 
year only ; and the beginning of Cabinet government was 
made. This latter came about because William chose 
his ministers from the leading political party of the 
House of Commons and thus these ministers were respon- 
sible directly to Parliament. 

William of Orange accepted the conditions of the 
Bill of Rights and became King in 1688, but his ac- 
cession did not bring peace and security to England. 
His reign was a time of popular unrest, for the peo- 
ple, both in England and in her American colonies, 
were beginning to feel the desire for political liberty. 
England was also distracted by the claims of the exiled 
Stuarts who were supported by the royalists in Eng- 
land and by a majority of the Scotch. 

James II's daughter Anne (1702-1714), the last 
Stuart, succeeded William of Orange. The most im- 
portant political event of her reign was the union of 
Scotland with England in 1707, when the Scots gave up 
their separate Parliament in consideration of the re- 
moval of duties on goods passing' across the borders. 


George III (1760-1820) followed two other Hanove- 
rian Georges. In his reign the American colonies 
gained their independence. At this time colonies were 
looked upon merely as sources of income for the 
mother country. But England, because of domestic 
troubles, had up to George Hi's time allowed her Amer- 
ican colonies an almost free hand in their internal and 


commercial development. George III, realizing that 
the colonies were bringing little to the imperial treasury 
sought to remedy the condition by reviving neglected 
trade laws whose enforcement would hamper the com- 
merce and manufactures of the colonists and give the 
main profit of American business to British merchants. 
The king and Parliament also sought to impose a new 
system of colonial taxation. The Americans resisted, 
and in 1776 set up the United States of America. 

In the study of the American Revolution it must not 
be forgotten that the colonists had powerful and ac- 
tive friends in England. The liberals, Pitt, Fox and 
the great orator, Burke, openly spoke out in favor of 
the colonists. What angered George III at Pitt and 
the other American sympathizers was the fact that 
their attitude was the cause of added discontent among 
the great masses of the middle class, who, because of 
the unfair distribution of representation in the Com- 
mons, were deprived of any voice in the government. 
" Pocket boroughs," small villages or districts almost 
without inhabitants, and " rotten boroughs," controlled 
by wealthy landowners, began to be complained of be- 
cause they held many seats in Parliament while the great 
manufacturing cities were absolutely unrepresented. 

That the fight for political freedom was a longer, 
bitterer struggle in England than in America was due 
to age-long inherited evils — religious intolerance, 
class rule, and a fixity of privileges which it took many 
years to overcome. America realized a great measure 
of political freedom much earlier and more easily than 
did the people of England because she cut with one 
blow the bonds of ancient wrong, and, foot-loose and 
scot-free, set out on the great adventure of populai 


In George Ill's reign, Ireland was united to Great 
Britain by an act of Union which was secured by 
wholesale bribery. The Parliament of Ireland, com- 
posed entirely of Irish Protestants, voted itself out of 
existence and 128 Protestant representatives were sent 
to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland. 


In spite of the fact that in 1688 Parliament had been 
definitely set up as the source of law, the whole of the 
18th century was a period of political stagnation if not 
retrogression in England. Little progress was made 
toward the extension of the franchise. The small 
group who held the right to vote and to hold office, to 
make and unmake laws, fought hard to confine those 
privileges to themselves. But with the opening of the 
19th century, signs of change appeared. In 1828, the 
laws discriminating against Quakers and other " non- 
jurors " were removed; in 1829, through the efforts 
of Daniel O'Connell, Catholics were allowed to sit in 
Parliament; and in 1858, Jews were finally permitted 
a place in the councils of the nation. 

At long intervals the demands of the people for 
political rights made real advances toward a juster and 
more liberal representation of the people. Three re- 
form bills were passed grudgingly by the Commons and 
with bitter strife on the part of the Lords in 1832, 
1867, and 1885. 

The first Reform Act fathered by " Lord " John 
Russell went into effect in 1832 after two other at- 
tempts had failed. By this act the franchise was ex- 
tended to a great portion of the middle class, and 
one hundred fifty members of " rotten " and " pocket " 


boroughs lost their places. These places were given 
largely to new towns and populous counties in Eng- 
land; a few went to Scotland and Ireland. 

At this period, the terms " Liberal " and " Conserv- 
ative " began to take the place of " Whig " and 
" Tory." The fact that the reform in representation 
was not granted freely left a bitterness of feeling be- 
tween the leisure and working classes of England, a 
feeling which has been kept alive by the piling up of 
wealth in the hands of a few, while the many remain 
below decent levels of life. 

In the early days of Victoria's reign (1837—1901), a 
clamor, usually spoken of as the " Chartist Agitation," 
arose among the poorer classes. The agitators were 
asking for six definite reforms which they set forth 
in a platform called the " People's Charter." These 
demands, which seem very mild to us, were as follows : 
universal suffrage, annual Parliaments, vote by ballot, 
abolition of property qualifications for members of 
Parliament, payment for members of Parliament, and 
equal electoral districts. 

Practically all of these demands have in the course 
of time been granted, but in the days of the Chartist 
Agitation — from 1838 to 1848 — England was in a 
periodical uproar over this " radical " program. In 
1848, the year of revolutions in Europe, the Chartists 
were put down after all England, particularly Lon- 
don, had been thrown into a panic of unreasonable fear 
by the attempt of the Chartists to march in a body to 
Parliament to present a monster petition which it was 
claimed contained five million signatures. The author- 
ities of London were alarmed. Two hundred thousand 
special police were sworn in, but nothing happened as 


the agitators seemed to have frightened themselves as 
well as the authorities. 

After that time little was heard of the Chartists but 
their work bore visible fruit in 1867 when a second 
Reform Act was passed. This act extended suffrage 
to householders and lodgers in cities, and to farmers 
and tenant-farmers in rural districts. In 1872 the 
right of suffrage was made more secure by the Ballot 
Act which allowed a voter to use a printed form in- 
stead of openly announcing his choice as was done be- 
fore that time. 

In 1885 the " Representation of the People " Act 
gave to all male householders and lodgers a right to 
vote, provided they paid their rent. By this act, 
passed under Gladstone's leadership, two million voters 
were added to the roll of electors and at last the right 
which had been taken away by the statute of 1429 was 
restored to working-men and laborers. 


In the development of government by the consent 
of the governed, the House of Lords has had very little 
part. As a body, their contribution has been entirely 
negative; that is, they may attempt to control legisla- 
tion by their veto but they have little positive influence 
in making new laws. Every attempt at reform has 
been hampered by the Lords, who at times have al- 
lowed the passage of measures only by the threat of the 
Commons to compel the King to " create " a sufficient 
number of " Liberal " Lords to carry through desired 

Of late years there has been serious discussion of 
totally abolishing the House of Lords, that seat of 
" ancient privilege and vested wrong." A virtual de- 

Courtesy of Ginn and Company 

Gladstone Addressixg the House of Commoxs 
From Outlines of European History, Part II, by Robinson and Beard 


struction of its power to hinder legislation was accom- 
plished by a law passed in 1911 which provides that, 
regardless of the Lords' veto, any money bill passed by 
the Commons becomes a law within a month, and any 
other bill after three successive sessions have passed it. 

The House of Commons, the real seat of the govern- 
ment of England, executes the will of the majority of 
its members through what is called the " Government," 
in other words the English Cabinet. As in the United 
States, political movements are carried forward by 
means of political parties, of which, in 1914, there 
were four — Liberal, Conservative (Unionist), Labor- 
ite, and the Irish party. To make a majority and 
thus get measures passed, different parties sometimes 
join forces, concessions being made on each side. The 
Prime Minister is the leader of the party which, by it- 
self or by combination with other parties, can com- 
mand the majority of votes of the Commons. The 
Prime Minister selects assistants for his executive coun- 
cil which corresponds in some ways to our President's 
Cabinet. However this body, unlike the American 
Cabinet, brings up all important measures that are to 
be enacted into laws. 

If, for some reason, the lining-up of the Commons 
becomes disturbed and the Prime Minister is unable 
to carry through important measures, his ministry 
" falls " ; he is automatically dismissed and the leader 
of the party which can control the House forms a 
new Cabinet. The only alternative that the Prime 
Minister can choose is to dissolve Parliament and call 
for a new election, a proceeding called " an appeal to 
the people." The result of the elections shows whether 
the Prime Minister or the opposing party has the sup- 
port of the country. Thus in England the Prime 


Minister and his Cabinet always have the backing of 
the majority of the house. In America a President 
elected by one party may have a Congress that is con- 
trolled by the other party and as a consequence, legis- 
lation may be almost completely blocked because of a 
deadlock between Congress and the President. 

The assertion is often made that the government of 
England is more sensitive to the will of the people than 
is the government of the United States, but when we 
realize the contrast between the social life in America 
and that in England, where class is still strongly 
marked ; when we remember that a hereditary House of 
Lords is one branch of the British government ; when 
we consider also that in the conduct of foreign affairs, 
that is, in the management of the vast British Empire, 
the English people have nothing at all to say, we may 
fairly conclude that the assertion is not true. More- 
over, in the actual working of the English government, 
there has grown up a large body of what may be termed 
administrative laws, by means of which government is 
carried on without immediate regard to the will of the 
people. In fact, in England, as in other European 
countries, and to some extent in the United States, the 
government does not always carry out the will of even 
a majority of the people. 

In the matter of rural and municipal local govern- 
ment, great advances were made in England during the 
19th century. The boroughs had always preserved 
a good measure of self-government even from Saxon 
times and the people in the rapidly growing cities have 
carried out the practice of their ancestors by their ac- 
tive and independent management of local affairs. By 
the end of the century, city governments had become 
thoroughly democratic, efficient, and enlightened. 


Public utilities — water, street-lighting, and local trans- 
portation systems — are now largely owned and suc- 
cessfully operated by the cities themselves. 

The Great War brought virtual universal suffrage 
to the people of England. In 1918 a law was passed 
which lowered the property qualification to so slight 
an amount that the vote was given to practically all men 
over twenty-one and to all women over thirty. The 
limitation to women over thirty is a temporary provi- 
sion made because the war had so reduced the number 
of men that there was danger of an overwhelming woman 
vote. It may be noted in passing that while this fourth 
Reform Bill in effect gives to each person a right to a 
voice in the government, suffrage in England is based 
on " property " rights and not on " natural " rights, as 
is the case in the United States. 


In this brief survey of the growth of political free- 
dom in England can be seen the prolonged and con- 
tinuous struggle between the two principles of govern- 
ment — on the one side autocracy, the old enemy, and 
on the other, democracy, the approximate rule of the 
people. Looked at fairly, the lengthened story pre- 
sents a not altogether pleasant picture of human na- 
ture, for often when democracy seemed about to be- 
come triumphant, it turned out to be not the true gold 
of popular rule, but the pallid silver of self-seeking, 
that desired expression for its own aspirations but re- 
fused a like expression to others of a different faith, 
race, or social status. 

The ruling powers in England, Parliament as well as 
King, have been slow in trusting the common people. 
Every reform has been wrung from governmental 


agencies as by sweat and blood. So simple and lucid 
a thing as justice had to be thus painfully won. The 
spectacle of rulers and law makers refusing again and 
again a decent consideration for the reasonable de- 
mands of their fellow men makes the lover of mankind 
sad and sick at heart. 

But the picture has its bright side. The course has 
been on the whole upward ; conditions have vastly im- 
proved and a better day seems to be dawning. The 
student of the political history of England remembers 
with a glow of warmth that every step in that long 
journey is marked by the heroic devotion of fearless 
leaders, who built for others than themselves ; men who, 
imperfect instruments though they were, wrought some- 
times unconsciously, often haltingly, the Gothic fabric 
of popular government, and led the way to clearer 
ideals of justice and equity, of fair play and a " square 

No class can claim these men whose names every 
lover of liberty reveres, no single profession, no single 
creed. The noble line holds the names of Stephen 
Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury; Simon de Mont- 
fort, a Norman baron ; Sir John Eliot, Vice-Admiral of 
the fleet ; John Hampden, a simple country squire ; Wil- 
liam Pitt, the Great Commoner ; Daniel O'Connell, a 
landless Irish lawyer; John Russell, the son of a 
peer of the realm ; and William Gladstone, an un- 
titled Englishman. Indeed, such names show in truth 
" the sacred mystery of democracy, that its richest 
fruits spring out of soils which no man has prepared, 
and in circumstances amidst which they are least ex- 
pected." ^ These men will stand foremost in the ranks 
of warriors who fought with other than mortal 
1 Woodrow Wilson. 


weapons, men who with brain and tongue and trench- 
ant pen dared cope with vested authority in the 
furtherance of free exercise of the right of the people 
to rule themselves. 

There is an ancient, oft repeated, much neglected 
rule called by all men " Golden," because of its simple 
truth and beauty. Its application by parliaments and 
peace conferences would go far toward making govern- 
ment of and by the people an actual brotherhood of 
man. Such an accomplishment is worthy the best 
efforts of all men everywhere. 



Here ... on this soil 
Began the kingdom, not of kings, but men! 
Began the making of the world again; 
Where equal rights and equal bonds were set, 
Where all the people cqual-franchised met; 
Where doom was writ of privilege and crown; 
Where human breath blew all the idols down; 
Where crests were nought, where vulture flags were furled, 
And common men began to own the world. 

John Boyle O'Reilly (The Pilgrim Fathers.) 

While the development of government by the people 
in England has had a more or less direct bearing on the 
democratic development of the United States, the main 
stream of influence was transferred to America in the 
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was at that 
time that there began in America a democracy differing 
in many respects from that of the parent country. 


The men who made the beginnings of our country 

were not the " average human material." They were, 

in a certain sense, picked men. The majority of those 

who immigrated to the new land were drawn from 

neither extreme of English society, the wretched poor 

nor the arrogant nobility. They were largely from 

the sturdy middle class, who, for one reason or another, 

had the courage and the enterprise to venture into un- 




miliH llu 

,i«^ mfl^.' &ir i-f fcijii'jt* to V* tfrti? ptvr l?!»tjni 

Courtesy of The Macmillan Company 

The Openin^g Lines of 

From Channing's History of the United States 

tried fields in a new and savage country far across 
the sea. They were artisans, tradesmen, farmers, 
townsfolk, and country people, with a sprinkling of 
gentlemen-adventurers, bond-servants, and vagabonds, 
all seeking to better themselves in one way or another. 
Some of them sought more of this world's goods, others 
sought political freedom, and yet others a chance to 
worship God according to their own consciences. With 
many of them the three motives were combined. 

Whatever the special reason that impelled these men 
to fare forth, the object sought by all was essentially 
the same — a freer, better, broader life for the in- 
dividual. Thus, though the Jamestown settlers came 
chiefly for economic reasons and a love of adventure ; 
the Pilgrims of Plymouth, the Catholics of Maryland, 
the Quakers of Pennsylvania for religious liberty; and 
the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay for relief from the 
oppression of a tyrant, the supreme motive in every 


> v.|| ^:^^^N 


) muili ^^ 11 lurmHir ii 

THE Pennsylvania Charter 

instance was a desire for liberty and the opportunity 
to get ahead, in other words, individual freedom. 

From the very first a marked change in the man- 
ners and ideals of the colonists began to show itself. 
The early settlers brought with them few men of rank, 
and society was more or less on a level. Moreover, 
owing to the great expanse of country, men could move 
about freely seeking larger opportunities. When a 
bond-servant had finished his term of service, he could 
strike out for himself and become a man among men. 
The necessity for labor with the hands proved to be 
a great leveller and in a marked degree helped the 
growth of the democratic spirit. 

In all of the colonies, the clearly defined practice 
of managing the affairs common to all by some sort of 
legislative assembly was adopted. The men of each 
colony claimed the hard-won political rights of Eng- 
lishmen, especially the right to control taxation. The 


colonial assemblies more or less regularly imposed the 
taxes and in general had a voice in making the laws. 
As a consequence, the colonists were independent and 
self-reliant. It was, in fact, this dominating desire 
to manage their own affairs that led to the break with 


The settlement of Virginia was begun in 1607 by 
" sundry knights, gentlemen, merchants, and other ad- 
venturers " sent out by the London Company whose 
charter placed the government of the colony in the 
hands of a " careful and understanding council," nomi- 
nated by the King. In 1619, the Virginia House of 
Burgesses held the first legislative assembly in Amer- 
ica. This Assembly, which was the direct ancestor of 
all of the free assemblies of America, was composed of 
delegates elected from each of the eleven boroughs of 
the colony, and was a miniature House of Commons 
for Virginia. One Jefferson, whose descendant, 
Thomas Jefferson, a century and a half later wrote 
the charter of the United States of America, was a 
member. The delegates who made up this first as- 
sembly were not from the rank and file of the people, 
but were men of wealth and position. This aristo- 
cratic county family system developed the great Vir- 
ginia leaders of Revolutionary times — the Washing- 
tons, the Lees, the Randolphs. But the very year that 
saw the beginning of free institutions in America also 
witnessed the introduction of human slavery into the 
same colony, for in 1619, a cargo of twenty slaves was 
brought from Africa by a Dutch trading vessel and 
sold to the Virginia planters. 

Virginia continued to develop her independent spirit 


although she had much trouble with tyrannical gov- 
ernors. The most noted of these was Governor 
Berkeley, a stubborn reactionary, who for nearly 
thirty-five years opposed popular government in the 
colony. On one occasion it is said that he thanked 
God that there were no free schools in Virginia as 
there w^ere in New England, 
nor any printing press, 
" because," he said, " too 
much education leads to sedi- 
tion." But the Virginian 
colonists conducted their 
individual affairs with a 
healthy independence, as the 
hand of the royal governor 
was not strong enough nor- 
long enough to restrict daily 
life on the scattered planta- 

During the Stuart period, owing to civil strife in 
England, a large number of Englishmen came to live in 
Massachusetts. In 1620, the Pilgrims — one hundred 
men, women and children — landed at Plymouth Rock 
after having drawn up the Mayflower Compact, in 
which they agreed solemnly and mutually to combine 
themselves into a body that would make all laws for 
the general good of the colony. In a word, they 
pledged themselves to obey whatever laws they them- 
selves should make. 

Beginning ten years later, between 1630 and 1640, 
ten thousand Puritans came* from England to escape 
the tyranny of Charles I. They settled at Boston, 
Cambridge, Charleston, and other small towns situated 
about Massachusetts Bay. The members of these 

The Seal of tfie State of 

Designed hy George Mason 


separate settlements, usually made up of a minister and 
his congregation, gathered in their meeting-houses not 
only for worship but for the conduct of worldly af- 
fairs. When the people came together for other than 
religious purposes, the gathering was a town-meeting. 
The unit, whether of Church or State, was called a 

By the time of the Revolution, Massachusetts had 
become a group of little, self-governing republics in 
which all the people, with certain restrictions, had a 
direct voice in affairs both civil and religious. The 
legislative assembly for the entire colony was made up 
of delegates to the " General Court," a body that cor- 
responded in many ways to the Virginia House of Bur- 
gesses. " Church and State " in the minds of the 
Puritans of Massachusetts were indissolubly united. 
Education was attended to primarily because, as mem- 
bers of the Church, the communicants must be ready to 
vote intelligently and to hold office. This made it nec- 
essary that everyone should know how to read the Bible. 
" Common " schools were therefore established for all 
the children, and " Latin " schools for prospective 

It was in the democratic features of its government 
that Massachusetts differed greatly from the " county 
family " feature of Virginia. VV^hile Virginia bred 
leaders, Massachusetts and the other New England 
colonies developed sturdy popular interest in govern- 
ment and a practice in popular control which later 
stood the United States in good stead. When trouble 
with England drew toward the point of eruption, be- 
tween 1765 and 1775, Massachusetts and Virginia 
formed the outer sides of the great wedge which was 
to push royal authority from the thirteen colonies. 


In Massachusetts, the clash of ideals concerning the 
right of suffrage led to the founding of new colonies. 
Governor Winthrop and the other founders of Mas- 
sachusetts feared a real democracy, believing that only 
the best trained men were wise and good enough to 
govern. Therefore they set up what really amounted 
to an aristocratic form of government, in which a little 

Courtesy of Charles Scribner's Sons 

Hooker's Emigration to Connecticut 

body of seven or eight men imposed taxes, made laws, 
and ruled the colony. The Reverend Thomas Hooker, 
pastor of Newton, held the more democratic view that 
the whole people ought to be governed by the whole 
people, provided they belonged to the Church. 

The strife w^as heated and finally in 1636, Thomas 
Hooker led his own and several other congregations 
to the Connecticut Valley, a land of reputed fruitful- 
ness and promise. Here, in 1639, the citizens of three 


neighboring towns met and agreed to govern them- 
selves by *' The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut," 
a written constitution under which only church mem- 
bers were allowed to vote and to hold office. This was 
the first time in the history of government that a com- 
monwealth was established by a written constitution. 
With a delightfully democratic carelessness, the docu- 
ment failed to mention the name of King in any part 
of its quaint and precise wording. 

About the same time that Connecticut was settled, 
Roger Williams, a minister of Salem, was driven out 
of Massachusetts because he believed in the separation 
of Church and State and preached this " heretical " 
doctrine. To free himself from persecution, he bought 
a piece of land from the Indians and founded Provi- 
dence. Here flocked persons of various heterodox re- 
ligious views — among them Anne Hutchinson who 
could not agree with the Puritan ministers on questions 
of theology and who practised woman's rights by freely 
criticizing and discussing these matters in public. 
A charter was granted in 164?3, which gave the inhabi- 
tants " full power and authority to rule themselves, 
as, by voluntary consent of all or the greater part of 
them, they shall find most suitable to their estate or 
condition." As no mention of religious test was made, 
it is needless to say that the Rhode Island Colony grew 

Maryland, under the Catholic Lord Baltimore, be- 
gan its existence as an organized colony in 1634, with a 
liberal charter which was the first to allow religious 
freedom. Among the people of Lord Baltimore's 
colony, a fierce spirit of political liberty was combined 
with an ingrained respect for law and a strong tend- 


ency to work out results not by violence but by de- 

New York, first set- 
tled by the Dutch, be- 
cause of toleration in 
religious matters, soon 
became a place of 
refuge for the perse- 
cuted of all nations. 
By 1643, eighteen dif- 
ferent languages were 
spoken in the streets 
of New York. The 
form of government 
was a representative 
assembly. In 1683, 
New York was trans- 
ferred to the English 
and James II closed 
the assembly, placing 
New Y^ork under a 
royal governor. 

The Carolinas have 
a curious and interest- 
ing governmental his- 
tory. With astonish- 
ing generosity, Charles 
II by a magnificent 
gesture granted the land to a group of friends who 
employed the English philosopher, John Locke, to draw 
up a form of government. Locke wrote an elaborate 
plan called " The Fundamental Constitutions " for the 
Carolinas, which divided the land into provinces, 
counties, signiories, and precincts. By this plan, the 

Statue of Roger Williams 


lords, whom the proprietors had the right to create 
under the name of landgraves and caciques, were to 
own the land and govern it arbitrarily, without the co- 
operation of the common people. There were to be as 
many landgraves as there were counties and twice as 
many caciques and no more. There were to be leet-men 
and leet-women, bound for all generations to the land 
of their caciques. Eight supreme courts to deal judg- 
ment, capped the whole fabric. This outrageous docu- 
ment was formally accepted by the " proprietors " as 
fundamental law for the wilderness of the Carolinas. 
As might have been expected, the people refused to be 
governed by this ridiculous constitution which became 
the subject of dispute for fifty years. 

The first settlers of Georgia came in 1732. They 
were released English debtors who, considered incap- 
able of taking part in the government, were ruled by 
a board of trustees. Slavery and rum were prohibited 
and religious freedom, except for Catholics, was per- 
mitted. By 1752 there were three thousand four hun- 
dred white people in Georgia and one thousand one 
hundred blacks. 

By the time of the founding of Georgia, New Jersey, 
Delaware, and Pennsylvania all had some form of 
legislative assembly, meeting more or less regularly.. 
These three complete the list of the thirteen original 

In 1648, the first attempt at union of the colonies 
was made by Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecti- 
cut, and New Haven when they formed " The United 
Colonies of New England " to protect themselves 
against the Indians and the Dutch traders on the Hud- 
son. Rhode Island was left out because of her " irre- 
ligious " tendencies. This federation was made with- 


out asking anyone's permission, the document explain- 
ing that they took this Hberty " by reason of the sad 
distractions in England." The New England Confed- 
eration is of great interest, as the first league of Amer- 
ican colonies made for a common purpose. 

After the Restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, 
Charles II sent a royal governor. Sir Edmund Andros, 
to rule over New England, New York, and New Jersey. 
Considering the colonial charters too liberal, Andros 
attempted to seize them, but the precious documents 
were in some cases conveniently lost. The Connecti- 
cut charter was hidden in a hollow tree, the famous 
Charter Oak. The early colonials were bent on 
" hoarding the mouldy parchments," which guaranteed 
their liberties. 

And so the story of the thirteen colonies goes — ■ in 
some features alike, in others widely differing, but all 
with the same practice of popular control of govern- 
ment and all disciplined by contests with royal gov- 


During all this time of settlement the colonies were 
not one in sympathy or spirit. They had grown up 
as separate and distinct commonwealths, and lacked 
any close bond of interest or government. But there 
were movements toward federation and during the years 
of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the peo- 
ple of the colonies grew to have mutual respect for 
each other while at the same time leaders were de- 
veloped, who a few years later, took the first steps 
toward independence. 

The beginning of the strife that led to the final 
break between the thirteen colonies and England fol- 


lowed this war. It was not a sudden thing — this 
breaking away from the mother country. It was 
rather due to a gradual change in ways of living and 
thinking and to differences in governmental institu- 
tions that had been transplanted to America. In 
America the tendency had set toward greater democ- 
racy ; all the people were workers, who either actually 
toiled with their hands or were in administrative posi- 
tions directing the work of others. There was no 
strictly leisure class. 

It must be remembered also, that by the time of the 
Revolutionary War there were various nationalities 
in the colonies — Scotch, German, French, Portuguese, 
Swedes, and a large number of Irish. This mixture of 
liberty-loving people had a great effect on the develop- 
ment and spirit of American institutions. The old 
bottles of Constitutional forms, brought over from 
England, held the wine of a new nationalism, flavored 
and warmed by the composite essence of many other 
than English strains. 

There was, moreover, among the colonists, even from 
the very beginning, a remarkable manifestation of in- 
ventiveness. This characteristic has persisted so con- 
tinuously that the United States, as a nation, may be 
said to possess the art of finding a way to do things. 
Added to this original power of invention was a cer- 
tain childlike daring and absence of fear that caused 
the colonists to rush into new situations in spite of evi- 
dent peril and cost. These traits of character have 
helped to make the American a different type from the 

In England, at this time, a great number of people 
were discontented as well as unrepresented in govern- 
ment. Parliament was in the hands of a narrow aris- 


tocracy which did not or could not get the point of 
view of the colonists. In fact, by 1770, England and 
America had grown so far apart that they could no 
longer understand each other. What followed was in- 
evitable. The people in the thirteen colonies had lived 
too freely and fully to be bound by laws not of their 
own mal<ing; they could not brook the interference of 
a ruler whose very existence they sometimes forgot or 
ignored, as did the makers of the Connecticut Consti- 
tution. It was not alone the tyranny of the English 
King and Parliament that caused the rupture, " it was 
the unquenchable determination on the part of the colo- 
nists to manage their own affairs." America was 
bound to be free. 

The struggle over taxation without representation 
which occupies so large a space in the history of the 
break with England w^as but the outward expression of 
the deep-seated antagonism between the European idea 
that colonies exist to feed the mother country and must 
in no way endanger her manufacturing and commercial 
advantages, and the American idea — then a new and 
startling one — that colonies exist mainly for the bene- 
fit of the colonies themselves. That irr^econ citable an- 
tagonism was the true cause of the American Revolu- 
tion. Fortunately for the world the American idea 
won on this side of the Atlantic. 

The triumph of England over France in the French 
and Indian War caused, in a measure, the loss of Eng- 
land's Ame^jc^n colonies. The English government 
in the hands of a small group began to put into opera- 
tion an aggressive imperial policy by enforcing old 
trade laws and adding new ones to make the colonies 
merely feeders of the mother country. Manufacturing 
was also restricted and the colonists forbidden to move 


westward. Besides all this England asked for a direct 
contribution to help pay the war debt. No doubt 
George III felt that it was only fair that the colonies 
should bear their portion of the war debt, but instead of 
going at the matter of a just apportionment of the bur- 
dens of the war in the customary way, the King and 
ParHament decided to waive the custom of asking the 
several colonial assemblies to consent to the taxes im- 
posed. Instead they put a general direct stamp tax on 
all the colonies. This famous " Stamp Act " was 
passed in 1765. The colonies at once showed that they 
were true to their traditions and training. Their 
English ancestors had fought, bled, and died, for the 
right of controlling taxation and these Americans, bold- 
ly declaring that they possessed the rights common to 
all Englishmen, refused to pay the tax. The little co- 
lonial assemblies bristled with rage and glowed with 
rhetoric, not at the amount of the tax, but at the viola- 
tion of their " immemorial " rights. It was then that 
Patrick Henry made his " Caesar had his Brutus " 
speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses ; it was then 
that Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and 
James Otis opened the fight in New England, harking 
back for their precedent to Magna Charta and the 
Petition of Right. 

Throughout all of the colonies, the greatest deter- 
mination to resist the tax prevailed. Nor was it the 
"best people " that made the loudest protests. The 
comfortable, the well-fed, the respectable were aghast 
at the demonstrations of the " Sons of Liberty, " local 
organizations of " common " people in nearly all the 
large towns who paraded the streets, burned the offend- 
ing stamps, and irreverently pulled down the King's 
leaden statue. 


Benjamin Franklin, who was in London at the time, 
told a committee of the Commons that the colonists 
would never submit to paying the stamp tax unless 
compelled to do so by force of arms. Massachusetts 
took the lead in calling a Stamp Act Congress to meet 
at New York. She found a ready second in Virginia. 
In 1775, delegates from nine colonies met, and follow- 
ing the English precedent, drew up a Declaration of 
Rights and Grievances which asserted that Parliament 
could levy no taxes without the consent of the people 
who paid them. 


The Stamp Tax was repealed largely through the 
influence of Pitt, Fox, Burke, and other liberal leaders 
in the House of Commons. But the trouble was not 
settled, because Parliament insisted on the principle 
that England had a right to tax the colonists. In the 
words of Lecky, the English historian, " from this time 
the conduct of the government toward the American 
Colonies is little more than a series of deplorable 

The Government suspended the colonial legislatures, 
laid taxes on articles of trade, quartered soldiers among 
the people, and refused to listen to the respectful pro- 
tests of the colonists, who at first had no thought of 
breaking with England. During this crucial time, the 
colonies were brought together by the Committees of 
Correspondence, especially by the Massachusetts Com- 
mittee, headed by Samuel Adams, and the Virginia 
Committee, whose chairman was Jefferson's chosen 
friend, the youthful Dabney Carr. 

At last, in 1774, after the passage of the " Intoler- 
able Acts " which closed the port of Boston, revoked 


the Massachusetts charter, forbade town meetings and 
sent poHtical prisoners to England for trial, the First 
Continental Congress, representing every colony except 
Georgia, met at Philadelphia. 

The men who met in this first representative assem- 
bly of all the colonies, were local leaders who were fear- 

He fought in the cause of liberty for a country not his own 

less and determined to make their case heard. They 
drew up another " Declaration of Rights " including a 
list of grievances; they denied the right of the English 
Parliament to legislate for them; they sent addresses 
to the King, to the people of Great Britain, and to 
Canada. These last were examples of effective early 
American propaganda calculated to break down the 
morale of the English army. As a consequence, George 
III found it hard to secure English soldiers and was 


compelled to employ hired mercenaries from Hesse- 
Cassel. This action greatly enraged the colonists and 
helped to bring matters to a crisis. 

The details of the struggle need not be told here. 
Every American knows the story of the American Revo- 
lution. Events followed rapidly — Lexington, Con- 
cord, Bunker Hill, the appointment of Washington as 
commander-in-chief, and finally the Declaration of In- 
dependence. As a result of these trying years of the 
war, the United States was recognized as an independ- 
ent country, and a new and shining star took its place 
among the nations of the world. 


It must not be supposed, however, that the Declara- 
tion of Independence with its *' all men are created 
equal," was the expression of the general political prac- 
tice of the colonies. It would be pleasant to believe, 
as many Americans do, that from the first Fourth of 
July every freeman in the United States of America 
had the right to vote and to hold office. But the facts 
will not bear out this comforting illusion. The right 
to vote, to hold office, and to sit in the legislative assem- 
bly was limited to those who held property, who paid 
taxes, and in most cases to those who professed certain 
religions. In 1776, of three million people in the thir- 
teen colonies, about one-fourth of the males were cut 
off from voting because of property or religious dis- 
ability, or because they were slaves. As is the case to- 
day a large percentage of those who were entitled to 
vote failed to take advantage of that privilege. 

By the time of the Revolution there had grown up 
in the colonies a governing class — persons especially 
fitted to assist in government because of " excellence 





in birth and education." This was true particularly 
in the South with its county family system. Fortu- 
nately, the more democratic training of New England 
helped to counteract these aristocratic tendencies. 
The success of the colonies in forcing the English 
government to acknowledge the new republic was the 
first step in the vindication on American soil of the 
principle that the source of government lies with the 
people governed. 

But after the war was won, the colonies learned that 
peace has its struggles no less trying than war. The 
great test of the strength, courage, and sagacity of 
the citizens of the young nation came to them in the 
critical period just following the Revolution. During 
the war, the states had adopted the Articles of Confed- 
eration as a form of government. This compact was 
as unsatisfactory a form of government as can be 
imagined, giving no real strength to Congress, which 
while it could create an army, could not collect money 
to maintain it. In fact, under the Articles, Congress 
was merely an advisory committee wholly dependent 
on the co-operation of the state legislatures, and en- 
tirely helpless when they disagreed. 

While the war was in progress, the states had re- 
sponded fairly well to the demands of the central gov- 
ernment, but when the heat of the struggle was over, 
a period of reaction came. While by 1781 every state 
had a Constitution, to which in nearly all cases was 
appended a Bill of Rights, the country as a whole was 
bordering on anarchy. The one thing that hold the 
colonics together from 1783 to 1789 was the Western 
lands, the great tract of unsettled country lying be- 
yond the AUeghanies. Maryland insisted that this ter- 
ritory become " common stock to be parcelled out by 


Congress into free, convenient, and independent gov- 
ernments," and that the funds derived from the sale 
of the lands be used for the common good. The set- 
tlement of the question in this manner established for 
America a new and original colonial policy, and event- 
ually opened up the way for permanent union of the 

But for a time affairs kept going from bad to worse 
in spite of the common possession of the Western lands. 
Congress moved about from place to place and small 
attention was paid to it. The roadways and travel 
routes were no better than they had been in the Revo- 
lutionary days. Each state was building for itself. 
New York had her own little system of duties by which 
she bled her neighbors. Rhode Island was equally self- 
ish in making restrictive laws, and other states showed 
a like spirit. 


The colonists were in a state of restless excitement; 
their early visionary hopes of unlimited wealth had 
begun to abate, while fear of a return to monarchy and 
the common ownership of all property increased pop- 
ular unrest. The thinking men of the country felt 
that something must be done to protect individual 
ownership and to establish law and order. At last 
in 1787, matters became so desperate, especially in 
regard to trade regulations, that the memorable Con- 
stitutional Convention was called at Philadelphia to 
amend the Articles of Confederation. The Constitu- 
tional Convention met in May, 1787, and held secret 
meetings for four months. When the convention 
opened its doors after its final sitting, it gave to the 


public, as the result of its labors, an entirely new in- 
strument of government. 

The Constitution of the United States did not be- 
stow political equality on all white men, nor did the 
men who made it intend that it should do so. The 
governing class, from which the men of the convention 
were drawn, distrusted the leveling tendencies of a 
wide extension of suffrage. They believed that the 
common people were too ignorant to be trusted with 
a share in the affairs of government. Nor did the 
idea that woman would ever figure as a factor in elec- 
tions occur to the doughty framers. It is interesting to 
note that because of the haste with which it was drafted, 
the Constitution of New Jersey had failed to limit 
suffrage to males. This omission was not corrected 
for fifty years, and during that period a few strong- 
minded, property-owning gentlewomen insisted upon 
their right to vote. Finally the constitution was 
amended and thereafter " females " were kept from the 
polls until very recent years. 


At the close of the Revolution, no state of the thir*- 
teen gave unlimited suffrage to men. In 1802, the 
Constitution of Ohio, the first state to be carved from 
the Western lands, granted the privilege of voting and 
of holding office to all white males above the age of 
twenty-one who had resided in the state for one year 
and who paid state or county tax. This was a big 
step in the advance of popular government. Within 
the first forty years of the nineteenth century nearly 
all the states excepting the slave states of the South, 
attained practically manhood suffrage. The states 
which were admitted after the adoption of the Consti- 


tution imitated Ohio's liberal example ; the older states 
followed. In 1830, during Jackson's administration, 
largely because of the now almost forgotten labor 
movement of those days, suffrage was extended to such 
a degree that the phrase " Jacksonian democracy " has 
remained to mark the period. Jackson also increased 
the power of the President by his liberal use of the 
Presidential veto. By this time property qualifica- 
tions and religious tests had been removed, and direct 
election of state governors had become the rule. The 
" Sovereign People " now at last began to factor as 
the real power behind the government. 

The War of Secession would seem to have completed 
the democratization of the whole country but, as a mat- 
ter of fact, nine-tenths of the negroes in the South 
are at the present time disqualified from suffrage on one 
ground or another ; and women, who have always made 
up more than one-half the adult population of the 
United States, were, for one hundred thirty-three years 
after the adoption of the Constitution, debarred from 
complete participation in the management of the politi- 
cal affairs of city, state, and nation. 

The growth of a more thorough-going democracy 
in the United States was helped by many forces besides 
the development of the idea of popular suffrage. The 
free land in the west, the labor movements, and the 
growth of education were among these influences. 
While these movements cannot be separated at any 
one place from the events that accompanied them, they 
should be looked at by themselves in order that the 
history of our government may be better understood. 

Strange to say, the House of Representatives in 
which the Constitutional Convention had unlimited 
faith has suffered a partial eclipse, while a trust in 



the good sense and good will of the people has steadily 
increased. This growing belief in democracy has in 
fact proved to be the main influence in our government. 
1840 saw the final disappearance from American poli- 
tics of an open belief in aristocracy. If it remains a 
political tenet of any individual or party, it is wisely 
kept in the background. 


The Charter Oak 



It is significant — significant of their own character and pur- 
pose and of the influences they were setting afoot — that Wash- 
ington and his associates, like the Barons of Runnymede, spoke 
and acted not for a class, but for a people. It has been left for 
us to see to it that it shall be understood that they spoke and 
acted not for a single people only, but for all mankind. 

Woodrow Wilson — July 4, 1918. 

In the study of the history of the development of 
popular government, there occur again and again refer- 
ences to certain great documents of liberty which have 
been notable sign-posts on the road toward democracy. 
Indeed, the written word has from the very earliest 
times played an important and interesting part in that 
development. From the days when the caveman with 
skill in expressing his ideas in pictures or written char- 
acters wielded an influence over his stronger brothers, 
anything that has been committed to writing has at- 
tached to itself dignity and significance because of its 
fixed and permanent form. 

The great documents that are of special interest to 
Americans are Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, 
the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of 
the United States, and the Emancipation Proclamation. 
Every one of these five great state papers was the re- 
sult of a crucial national struggle. They came into 
being because of the intrepid courage of bold leaders 
in the cause of freedom, men who contended for liberty 

with the eloquence of justice, in each case backed by 



the opinion of a majority of the people of the nation 
which they represented. 


Magna Charta, the first of the great documents, is 
written in Latin and is well worth reading either in 
the original or in an English translation. It is an 
extremely business-like treaty of peace, for that is what 
it really was. There was nothing in it that was new. 
The laws set down were the customary laws for all 
Englishmen, but the placing of these laws in writing, 
on the demand of a portion of the people, was new and 
significant ; for the barons claimed and secured the 
rights not only of nobles and churchmen, but of free- 
holders and merchants, of townsmen and villagers as 
well. The signing of Magna Charta marks the step 
from traditional laws, that is, from laws that are 
merely customs, to statutory laws, or laws that are 
written and sanctioned by the government. In fact. 
Magna Charta was the beginning of written and defined 
English law. 

In the discussion of Magna Charta, two provisions 
are usually emphasized. One of these guaranteed the 
right of every freeman to a fair and prompt trial by 
jury on a definite charge, and the other gave to the 
Council of the realm the right to impose taxes. These 
two are, in truth, the great clauses of the Charter, 
though they were not considered of unusual import- 
ance to the determined men who coerced King John. 
The barons and the freemen of that time realized some- 
thing of the weight of the first clause, which took from 
the King and his retainers power over the person of 
an individual, but no one had any idea of the future 
significance of the second, which made the King finan- 


ciallj helpless unless the council which later came to 
represent the people approved of his expenditures. 

But these two articles, weighty though they are, do 
not make up the whole of Magna Charta. As a matter 
of fact, the document is long, containing sixty-two 
articles and covering many pages. Most of it is of 
merely incidental interest and pertains to the relation 
of the barons and the king, to matters of inheritance, 
guardianship, and the payment of feudal dues. There 
are other articles, however, which have had a lasting in- 
fluence. For instance, the statement in Article 17, that 
" common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall 
be held at any place," meant much to all Englishmen. 
Before this time claimants for justice had been com- 
pelled to move about after the king's court. After 
Magna Charta, the place of the courts was fixed and 
the immediate influence of the king removed. 

Magna Charta contains a provision regarding the 
payment of debts to Jews; a provision for uniform 
measures — dry, wet, and linear; a provision standard- 
izing the breadth of dyed cloth ; and a provision pro- 
hibiting the unlawful forcing of towns and individuals 
to build bridges and embankments. One provision re- 
lates to the ownership of the tools of production, a 
problem that is one of the serious questions of our own 
time. The king, the sheriff's, and the barons were for- 
bidden to take horses or carts from any freeman with- 
out his consent; nor was any freeman to be despoiled 
of the firewood which he had laboriously collected 
against the coming winter. One can readily imagine 
the lordly king's sheriff* demanding the plow-horse or 
the ox-team of honest Hodge who perchance was at 
the time in the midst of harvesting. 

A provision concerning the safety and security of 


merchants coming into and going out of England was 
an early attempt at removal of unjust economic bar- 
riers. In the provision, " we will not make justiciars, 
constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, excepting such as know 
the laws of the land and are well disposed to observe 
them," Magna Charta made the faint beginnings of 
the profession of law. By the provisions of Magna 
Charta the towns were secured in their privileges and 
protected against unjust taxation; they were confirmed 
in the right to regulate their trade and to hold munic- 
ipal meetings. 

Article 60, one of the great provisions of the Charter 
pointing toward democracy, reads: "Also all these 
customs and liberties aforesaid, which we have granted 
to be held in our kingdom, for so much of it as belongs 
to us, all our subjects, as well clergy as laity, shall 
observe towards their tenants as far as concerns them." 
This meant equal law to all freemen whether nobles or 

Article 61 was the straw that broke the camel's 
back, as far as the King was concerned, for by its 
provision, John was put under the guardianship of 
twenty-five elected barons, and in case he failed to 
keep his promise, the " said five and twenty barons 
together w^ith the community of the whole kingdom " 
could rightfully make war upon him, provided always 
his majesty's royal person was kept from harm. By 
this article, civil war was made legal. The document 
closes with the names of the " barones electi," De Clare, 
Albemarle, Glover, Hereforden, Robert de Vere, Wil- 
liam Marshall, Richard of Percy, William of Hunting- 
ford, and the rest, the men whose strong task it was to 
see to it that the terms of the Charter were carried 

King John Is Forced to Accept Magna Charta 1215 


The barons had John at their mercy, but they de- 
manded no punitive indemnities, restoration, nor resti- 
tution. They stood firm to their demands for their 
own rights, and made safe to the tiller of the soil his 
ox and his wain ; to the merchant, protection and sale ; 
to the consumer, uniform weights and measures ; and 
to all men, trial by jury on a distinct charge. 

One may be sure that of all who witnessed that great 
scene at Runnymede, not one of the retainers and 
men-at-arms who stood idly about, not one of the frown- 
ing barons, not even the fearless and scholarly Lang- 
ton, least of all John himself, was moved by prophetic 
warnings of the significance to future democracy of 
that written guarantee of the liberties of a people. 

The barons believed in " openness of treaties, openly 
arrived at," and that " treaties should be made known 
in their entirety " to the rest of the kingdom. In the 
carrying out of this fair and candid policy, copies 
of the Charter were sent out to be sworn to in every 
hundred court and shire moot in the kingdom. 

In the British Museum a priceless copy of the orig- 
inal Magna Charta is sacredly guarded. Blackened 
and discolored by time, it attests the indestructibility 
of a written promise which stands as the visible evidence 
of a solemn agreement made under oath. That Magna 
Charta was deemed an inviolable pledge of liberties is 
evidenced by the fact that during the greater part of 
the thirteenth century, the bishops twice a year in the 
great Hall of Westminster solemnly pronounced excom- 
munication against 

Who so lays his hand on these 
England's ancient liberties, 
Who so breaks, by word or deed, 
England's vow at Runnymede.i 
1 Whit tier. 


But in spite of the curse laid upon charter-breakers, 
Magna Charta was broken and renewed thirty-seven 
times, often, as was the case with Henry III, by the 
same King again and again. Nevertheless from 1215 
to the present day, Magna Charta has proved a strong 
weapon against tyrannical oppression. 


The " Petition of Right " which was signed by 
Charles I, the second Stuart, in 1628, more than two 
hundred years after Runn3'mede, was a bold and 
straight forward setting forth of the wrongs done to 
the people by their sovereign. It took up under eleven 
heads the grievances of the realm against the King; 
rehearsed the privileges of jNIagna Charta, especially in 
relation to the levying of taxes without legal authority ; 
referred to the laws of Edward III, which specifically 
forbade false imprisonment; charged the King with 
direct violation of these and other rights ; remonstrated 
against the billeting of soldiers in private houses, 
" against the custom of this realm " ; and finally prayed 
the King " most humbly " to be " graciously pleased " 
to grant their " petition " by signing it. This virtual 
demand — for it was that rather than a petition — was 
written in English that seems very like our own, with 
little attempt at felicity of phrase, but with quiet dig- 
nity and sanity. 

The Petition of Right, like Magna Charta, was 
wrung from the King by Parliament after years of 
determined insistence that that body and not the King 
was the source of power. Sir John Eliot showed no 
less valor than did Stephen Langton and again the 
bulk of the nation supported the attack on the prerog- 
ative of the King. The scene that preceded the sign- 


ing is thus described in a letter of the time. " Then 
appeared such a spectacle of passions as the like had 
seldom been seen in such an assembly ; some weeping, 
some expostulating, some prophesying of the fatal ruin 
of our kingdom. There were above a hundred weep- 
ing eyes, many who offered to speak being interrupted 
and silenced by their own passions." 

At last the King gave way, and after writing the 
customary, " Let it be done as is desired," affixed his 
name to the waiting paper. At once there followed 
great rejoicing throughout the land; bells were rung, 
bonfires blazed, and London went wild with joy. 

Magna Charta and the Petition of Right are the 
most precious of the Charters of English Liberties. 
Each granted or reaffirmed certain fundamental rights 
to freemen. The justice that these documents recog- 
nized was not for a class or a creed, but for all men. 
Because of this, they deserve to be remembered by every 


When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of 
Independence, he was thirty-three years old. His ac- 
count of the circumstances accompanying the making 
and adoption of this great state paper is modest and 
simple. " The committee for drawing the Declaration 
of Independence desired me to do it. It was accord- 
ingly done." 

Jefferson put into the Declaration of Independence 
ideas that had been expressed in the Bill of Rights 
of the Virginia State Constitution earlier in the same 
year. Jefferson clothed these ideas of the rights of 
man and of the source of government in fitting and 
noble language, which, together with the dramatic man- 


ner of its presentation to the world and the happy 
settlement of the issue, has made it a lasting heritage 
to all lovers of human liberty. When Jefferson had 
finished his draft of the Declaration, he showed it to 
the other members of the committee — John Adams, 

Pbotograpli from Underwood and Underwood 

Tno3iAS Jeffersox, with Other Members of the Cf)M:MiTTEE ox 
THE Declaration of Independence, Laying Draft before 
THE Continental Congress. 

From a painting by Trumbull in the Capitol at Washington 

Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Living- 
stone. They made but few minor changes. Not so 
when the committee reported Jefferson's draft to the 
" Committee of the Whole." Every sentence was care- 
fully scanned ; every clause polished to perfection ; not 
a word escaped scrutiny. 


The Declaration of Independence, as it was adopted, 
after scrupulous changes and excisions, is a master- 
piece of state-craft. It is direct, simple, business-like, 
dignified, and final. It opens with the familiar state- 
ment of the reasons for severing relations with Great 
Britain, thus publicly set forth because of " a decent 
respect for the opinion of mankind." The Declaration 
proceeds, in a nobly earnest manner, to lay down the 
principles upon which the colonies based their right to 
institute a new government. 

The chief of these principles, " Governments are in- 
stituted among men, deriving their just powers from 
the consent of the governed," is the great contribution 
of the Declaration to democratic government, " the 
sacred jewel " of the whole. Americans have long held 
it as the foundation principle of government; have 
held it as a theory, even though it has not always been 
realized in practice. But, like the Golden Rule, which 
men too often fail to follow, it yet remains a goal of fair 
dealing to be striven for. 

The instrument goes on to acknowledge that " Gov- 
ernments long established should not be changed for 
light and transient causes " — but that under the policy 
of " Absolute Despotism " which had been persisted in 
by the English government, it has become the duty of 
the colonies " to throw off such Government and pro- 
vide new Guards for their future security." 

Then follows a list of specific charges against the 
" present King of Great Britain," published to a " can- 
did world." According to the Dec'laration, George 
III had violated both Magna Charta and the Petition 
of Right, documents with which the well-trained men of 
the Continental Congress were thoroughly acquainted. 

The list of grievances is followed by a paragraph 


setting forth the repeated attempts of the colonies to 
gain redress : " In every stage of these oppressions we 
have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms : 



9^i^<7^ '^y. 


Facsimile of the Sigxatures ox the Declaration of 

our repeated Petitions have been answered only by 
repeated injury." The Declaration hesitates not to 
register condemnation of the " British Brethren " whose 


" native justice and magnanimity " had been appealed 
to in vain, but who had remained " deaf to the voice of 
justice and of consanguinity,-' an indifference and 
neglect which made it necessary that the colonies " hold 
them as the rest of mankind. Enemies in War, in Peace, 

Into the lines of the " Enabling Act " which created 
the United States of America, Jefferson packed the 
whole of Magna Charta and the other great English 
documents of liberty. But he went much farther than 
those noble predecessors ; he put forth a set of prin- 
ciples that America has ever since been trying to prove 
workable with steadily increasing promise of success. 

In a greater degree than do Magna Charta and the 
Petition of Right, Jefferson's masterpiece shows a re- 
serve, a dignity, and a surencss of grounds upon which 
the Signers took an unalterable stand. When they ap- 
pended their names to the document they were not un- 
mindful of the solemnity of the occasion. Those eight- 
eenth century gentlemen in buff and blue coats, knee 
breeches, buckled slippers, and curled wigs were en- 
gaged in a desperate undertaking. They, like the bar- 
ons of Runnymede, and the Parliament under Sir John 
Eliot, were arrayed against their acknowledged sov- 
ereign, but they, unlike the others, had reached the 
point where compromise was impossible. The vote for 
the Declaration was affirmative and doubtless the hands 
of the men who put their signatures to the great docu- 
ment trembled beneath their falling laces. The list at 
the end of the Declaration, headed by the boldly defiant 
signature of John Hancock, is familiar to Americans 
who scan the noble roll in the hope of finding some 
ancestral trace of their own names. For while it has 
proved a distinction to be a descendant of a Signer, at 


the time of the Declaration, every man of them was a 
felon in the eyes of English law. 


But the Declaration, great though it be, is yet not 
the most precious documentary legacy to which Ameri- 
cans are heirs. The Constitution of the United States, 
the fundamental law of the land, must be placed above 
it as above any other document connected with Amer- 
ican history. The narrative of its formation, the most 
important of its provisions, and the changes in inter- 
pretation that have been read into it, are matters which 
every American should know in full and complete 


The one great stain on the Constitution by which 
" other persons " were denied the rights of man, was 
blotted out by the hand of Abraham Lincoln, when, 
in 1863, he issued the third of the great American 
Documents of Freedom. Lincoln knew from the very 
beginning of the war that he would have to deal a 
death-blow to slavery in order to insure success for 
the North; he but waited the right moment to act. 
After due consideration, he decided to go to the ex- 
treme length of his prerogative as Commander-in-chief 
of the army and navy, and hit " slavery hard " by set- 
ting the slaves free. He fully understood that the 
Constitution of the United States granted him no such 
specific power, but he deliberately assumed the power 
for an unprecedented act. By the advice of his Cab- 
inet, he waited until the North should gain a signal 
victory. Antletam brought It in September of 1862. 
At once Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation 


which was approved by the House of Representatives 
as " a well-chosen war-measure," and an " exercise of 
power with proper regard for the rights of the states 
and the perpetuity of a free government." The public 
proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. This act 
made the name of Abraham Lincoln immortal. 

The Emancipation Proclamation is a brief document 
without any of the grace of lengthened phrase that 
marks the Declaration of Independence. It is a 
Lincoln pronouncement, concise, clear, yet mellow. 
The word " slave " is not minced, nor is any excuse or 
palliation offered for the drastic act of Emanci- 

When he sent forth the great message to the world, 
Lincoln rightly trusted that the people of the United 
States would support his assumption of power. Sur- 
rounded by the members of his Cabinet which was di- 
vided in its support of him, the great President set his 
name to the state paper that was to be given to the 
world through the press. Nor for one instant did he 
falter, though he knew that his act would shake the 
nation to its very foundation. 

" Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of 
the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested 
as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of 
actual armed rebellion against the authority and Gov- 
ernment of the United States, and as a fit and necessary 
war measure for suppressing said rebellion," the main 
clause of the Proclamation reads, and later continues, 
" and by virtue of the power and for the purpose afore- 
said, I do order and declare that all persons held as 
slaves are and henceforward shall be free." It closes : 
" And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of 
justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military 


necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind 
and the gracious favor of Almighty God." 

By the Emancipation, Abraham Lincoln freed the 

The Great Emaxcipator 

From, a photograph of the Freedmen's Memorial Statue, in Lincoln 
Square, Washington, designed hy Thomas Ball. The figure kneeling at 
Lincoln's feet represents Archer Alexander, at one time a fugitive slave. 

slaves in the states and territories that were in rebel- 
lion. The generations of Americans that have followed 
have not revoked his act nor questioned the unusual 
use of his prerogative. The opinion of mankind gen- 


erally has set the seal of approval upon his assump- 
tion of extraordinary power. 

This completes the list of great historical documents 
to date. They form a noble heritage to be treasured 
and passed on to coming generations. They are the 
handwritings on the wall left by those who fought in 
the long battle of brain, mind, and tongue, often un- 
noticed and unapplauded, often hindered by the cutting 
criticisms of partisan or petty personal jealousy, or by 
strong political opposition. Such a strife requires as 
high a form of courage as that displayed where lead 
and steel deal out terrible death in a thousand grisly 
forms. For, when the roar of guns has been stilled, the 
legal battle must be carried on. The road leads up 
hill all the way and there can be no pause for rest if 
government by the people is to persist. 


On October 26, 1918, during the last year of the 
Great War, there gathered in Independence Hall in 
Philadelphia a strange group of men, drawn to that 
cradle of Constitutional liberty by the memory of the 
past. They took their stations near the Liberty Bell, 
apparently believing with an almost pathetic faith that 
the very place would help them to carry out their stead- 
fast, forward-looking purposes. They were men whose 
names smacked not of Anglo-Norman or colonial 
descent; not the De Clares, Percys, Huntenfelds, Bi- 
gods, and Marshalls of Magna Charta; nor yet the 
Hancocks, Lees, Franklins, Carrolls, Dickensons, 
and Adamses of the Declaration. There were gathered 
Thomas G. Masaryk of Czecho-Slovakia, Nicholas Ceg- 
linsky of the Ukraine, Bogumil Voznjak, a Jugo-Slav, 
Vasile Stoica of Roumania, Gregory Zsatkovick of 


Uhro-Rusin, and a number of others, representative of 
the oppressed nationalities of Central Europe — Bohe- 
mians, Slovaks, Poles, Ukranians, Lithuanians, Greeks, 
Albanians, Italian Irridestists, Zionists, Armenians. 
Under the friendly protection of the Great Republic 
of the West, they set forth a list of noble principles 
for the settlement of the vexed question of the source 
of a just government of fifty millions of people from 
the chain of nations lying between the Baltic, the Adri- 
atic, and the Black seas. 

The Declaration made by these men laid down the 
principle that governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed ; that any people has 
the inalienable right to organize its own government ; 
that kindred peoples should cooperate for common wel- 
fare ; that a league of the civilized nations of the world 
should enter into a common and binding agreement to 
secure justice and peace for all men. 

The Declaration rehearsed the wrongs suffered at the 
hands of autocratic dynasties ; it mentioned many " an- 
cient wrongs." " We have been deprived of proper 
representation and fair trial ; we have been denied the 
right of free speech, and the right freely to assemble 
and petition for the redress of our grievances ; we have 
been denied free and friendly intercourse with our sister 
states ; and our men have been impressed in war against 
their brothers and friends of kindred races." 

" Proper representation," " fair trial," " free 
speech," " right of free assembly," " right to petition," 
"redress of grievances," how often since the days of 
Magna Charta have the changes been rung on those 
worn phrases. These 20th century Framers were evi- 
dently students of the Great Historic Documents of 
Liberty of the English and the American peoples. 



Their Declaration of the Rights of Nations was a fit- 
ting summary of the subject of popular government. 
And though since the Great War some of these very 
peoples have shown signs of a greed as rapacious and 
an intolerance as severe as that of any ancient or mod- 
ern autocracy, the justice that they demanded for 
themselves in their days of evil fortune is the unchange- 
able justice that in the end must be accorded to all 
aspirant nations who desire liberty and a government 
of their own choosing. ^ / 



We know what Master laid thy keel, 
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, 
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, 
What anvils rang, what hammers beat. 
In what a forge and what a heat 
Where shaped the anchors of thy hope! 

H. W. Longfellow. 

The Constitution of the United States of America did 
not have the dramatic birth of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. Its drafting was not the work of one man, 
but of half a hundred men. Even its wording had a 
composite origin. It was the product of the practical 
experience of statesmen with widely differing opinions, 
earnestly bent on making a form of government that 
would meet the varied needs of a great people and 
gain their united approval. 


The Constitution was drawn up by representatives 
sent from the several states to amend the Articles of 
Confederation in such a way as to make possible a 
stable government of the new United States. In May, 
1787, this Constitutional Convention met at Philadel- 
phia in the hall where the Declaration of Independence 
had been signed. Wanting in the picturesqueness 

which set off that previous gathering, and shorn of the 



glittering trappings that used to be associated with 
military pomp, the Constitutional Convention waged, 
nevertheless, one of the noblest conflicts in American 
History. The Convention was a remarkable gather- 
ing of notable persons, many of whom had been engaged 
in the perilous fight for independence since the days of 
the Stamp Act. 

This great assembly was not a legislative body; it 
did not meet to make laws, it was merely a large com- 
mittee selected for the purpose of presenting a plan 
which later might be accepted or rejected by the states. 
While it was the first assembly of its kind, it has since 
had hundred of counterparts in conventions for draw- 
ing up state constitutions, city charters, and sim- 
ilar organs of government. Such conventions are 
merely bodies of private persons with no legislative 
powers, whose work may be summarily rejected by the 
people for whom it has been so carefully made. 
Nevertheless an unofiicial council of this sort is a nec- 
essary first step in planning for popular government in 
any new form. 

It must be remembered that the men who made up 
the Constitutional Convention were not the plain men 
of the people, but rather, picked men of the young 
republic — the representatives of the great county fam- 
ilies of Virginia, the tried leaders of thought in Massa- 
chusetts and the other colonies. Graduates of Har- 
vard, of Yale, of Princeton, of William and Mary, of 
Oxford, of Glasgow, and of Edinburgh, were in the 
assembly. Among the delegates were seven governors 
of states and twenty-eight members, or former members, 
of Congress. The oldest delegate was Benjamin Frank- 
in, then eighty-one years old; the youngest, Jonathan 
Dayton of New Jersey, a " stripling " of twenty-six. 


In later years, these men* became presidents, vice-presi- 
dents, justices of the supreme court, members of the 
president's cabinet, United States representatives, and 

The official minutes of the proceedings of the Con- 
vention were kept by the secretary, but by far the best 
record was made by James Madison of Virginia. That 
not a word might escape him, this devoted patriot took 
a seat in the middle of the hall and every day for nearly 
four months, he wrote down in self-made shorthand, a 
faithful account of all that was said; every night, he 
undertook the tedious task of transcribing his notes 
into a journal. Madison did this, as his Journal states, 
that there might be an " exact account " of " the his- 
tory of the making of a constitution on which would 
be staked the happiness of a people and possibly the 
cause of liberty throughout the world." This Journal, 
one of the precious documentary treasures of Amer- 
icans, was found among Madison's papers and made 
public fifty years after it had been written, when all 
the men that had helped to frame the Constitution had 
long been dead. 


Though all the members of the Convention were 
earnest patriots, there were certain of them who, by 
the power of their presence and attitude or by the 
logical force of their views, stood out as leaders. 
Washington was a fitting president. He was no de- 
bater, but, guided by cautious common sense, he made 
an excellent presiding officer. Moreover, his magna- 
nimity and patriotism, his serene and unchanging bal- 
ance of mind, the respect and honor which attached to 
him, were the very qualities needed in the moderator of 



such a convention. He spoke seldom during the pro- 
ceedings, but we may be sure that not a whisper escaped 

As has been noted, Benjamin Franklin was the patri- 
arch of the Convention, a very old man, weak in body, 
but with an unimpaired mind. He was the peace-maker. 

Courtesy of the McMillan Co 


From Channing's History of the United States 

His genial temper and ready fund of appropriate 
stories more than once kept the assembly from going 
to pieces on the rocks of apparently irreconcilable 

One of the great figures of the Convention was Alex- 
ander Hamilton of New York. Hamilton was at the 
time a brilliant young man of thirty-three years. He 
had been a soldier in the Revolution, a member of Wash 


ington's staff, and was already a leader in politics. 
In the Convention, his logical, lucid setting-forth of the 
alternatives offered in any given case, his clear enuncia- 
tion of principles, and his practical suggestions, af- 
forded the greatest help in the formation of the Con- 

James Madison, " The Father of the Constitution," 
was also a dominating figure. A native of Virginia, 
he was a Princeton graduate and had been in public 
life for a number of years. He was a man of well- 
balanced powers — sober, sane, sweet-tempered, gen- 
erous, and kind. Yet, when convinced on a matter, he 
was stubborn and won his point by force of intellect, 
industry, and downright honesty. In manner, he was 
shy and prim, blushing like a girl in the heat of argu- 
mentation. He took part freely in the discussions and 
so clearly did he express his views that the other mem- 
bers " were enlightened while they were being con- 

Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was another of 
the delegates. Though he was a stout abolitionist and 
hater of slavery, he was not at all democratic. He 
feared the " leveling " tendency of government by the 
people and wished to check the " precipitancy, change- 
ableness, and excess of the popular spirit." There 
were also present Rufus King of Massachusetts, search- 
ing and profound in explaining political principles ; 
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a staunch democrat who 
had signed the Declaration of Independence; Charles 
Pinckney of South Carolina; and Edmund Randolph, 
the " president " of Virginia. 

Besides these nine men who exerted the greatest 
moulding influence on the Constitution, there were a 
number of other delegates who must be mentioned: 


Roger Sherman of Connecticut, the signer of three of 
the Great American Documents — the Declaration of 
Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the 
Constitution; Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, the 
financier of the Revolutionary War ; John Dickinson 
of Delaware ; John Rutledge of South Carolina ; and 
George Mason of Virginia. 

Mason of Virginia, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, 
and the venerable Franklin were the most democratic 
men of the Convention. Most of the others leaned to- 
ward aristocratic ideals in government and wished to 
establish a government for the people, administered by 
the wealth and intelligence of the country. Such an 
attitude was natural to men who saw the need of a 
strong power to bring the country out of the chaos to- 
ward which it seemed to be going. They feared the 
excesses of the uninstructed mob. The period of reac- 
tion from the high days of the Declaration had set in. 

Certain marked figures were absent — tJefFcrson was 
in France, as the American Ambassador to that coun- 
try ; John Adams held a like position in England, doing 
his best with George III, who naturally was not over- 
cordial ; John Jay was occupied as Secretary of For- 
eign Affairs. There were others absent " on purpose " 
or without excuse — among them Patrick Henry and 
Samuel Adams, who refused to work in a cause with 
which they were not in sympathy. These men believed, 
as did many others, that the important unit of govern- 
ment was the State. They feared a strong central gov- 
ernment. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who, be- 
sides the Declaration and the Articles, had signed the 
State Constitution of Virginia, might have signed the 
fourth great document of American freedom, but missed 


that enviable honor because he, also, disapproved of 
the Convention. 

Twelve states were represented in the Convention. 
Delaware, which came late, was the first to ratify the 
Constitution and thus redeem herself. Rhode Island 
sent no delegate. 

The deliberations of the meeting were secret, and it 
was well they were. If the people at large had been 
informed of the almost daily crises, when the Conven- 
tion seemed ready to fly to pieces, if they had realized 
how far apart in opinion the delegates sometimes were, 
it is doubtful whether outside pressure would not have 
caused a complete disruption. 


The delegates from the very first faced grave diffi- 
culties. They were gathered to draw up an instrument 
of government that would bind together the people of 
a widely scattered country composed of thirteen states 
varying in climate, occupation, and social habits. It 
needed to be suitable alike for people whose chief in- 
terest was trade ; for those who were predominantly 
agricultural ; for large states and small ; for states with 
many slaves, and for states with but few " other per- 
sons " than freemen. In other words, the plan must 
be such as would be acceptable to a various people, to 
the fishermen and hill farmers of New Hampshire, to the 
merchants and ship-owners of Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut, and to the landed proprietors of Virginia who 
knew nothing of work with their hands. 

Yet, although there were many causes of discord, 
there were graver reasons for union. The people of 
the states and their representatives at the Convention 


knew that some method of central control must be 
found, or individually the states were in danger of 
perishing. The dread of foreign powers was an im- 
portant factor which helped to bring together the vari- 
ous interests. France on the west, England on the 
north, and Spain on the south, were uncomfortably near 
neighbors and the colonists were not anxious for a 
collision with any one of them. 

There were other conditions in favor of a national 
life for the states. All the people spoke the same lan- 
guage; all were governed by the same English com- 
mon law ; all were accustomed to the management of 
their own affairs by elective legislatures ; all were at- 
tached to local self-government ; and all had a common 
pride in their triumph over England. " There were, 
moreover, no reactionary conspirators to be feared, for 
everyone prized liberty and equality. There were no 
questions between classes, no animosities against rank 
and wealth, for rank and wealth did not exist." ^ 

The delegates had one practical advantage much in 
their favor. They came from states where they had 
had a hand in making state Constitutions which had 
by this time been in operation for several years, and 
consequently they knew the elements of weakness and of 
strength in the state governments. Added to this 
training, was their previous experience in the Continen- 
tal Congress and under the unsatisfactory " Articles," 
which kept the delegates from going to the extremes of 

These men were, moreover, well read in history, phil- 
osophy, and the law; they had studied with interest 
the development of the English Constitution ; they knew 
the Petition of Right as well as Magna Charta; they 
1 Bryce. 


were deeply versed in English jurisprudence; and they 
had, best of all, a vision of the future. In a word, the 
delegates to the Constitutional Convention were filled 
with the purpose of forming some plan that would put 
just and righteous government on a working basis. 
They were, therefore, ready to contend and amend and 
compromise and reconsider, until they should reach a 
fairly satisfactory agreement. 


It was evident almost from the first that the orig- 
inal plan of the convention which contemplated amend- 
ing the Articles of Confederation was impractical. Be- 
fore long the delegates deliberately decided to exceed 
their authority, make a new constitution, and leave it 
to the states to justify or disapprove their action. 
Two plans were discussed. Randolph of Virginia 
brought in the Virginia Plan, which favored the large 
states and tended to a strong central government. 
The New Jersey plan, on the other hand, was favored 
by the small states, as by it each state, regardless of 
population, would have equal voting power in national 
affairs. This plan really amounted to an amendment 
to the Articles of Confederation. 

The consideration of these plans threw the Conven- 
tion into two contending camps. Three main difficul- 
ties developed, to overcome which the delegates made 
in the course of their deliberations three compromises. 
The first difficulty, that between the large states and 
the small states on the question of representation, was 
compromised by allowing equal representation of all the 
states in the Senate and representation according to 
population in the House of Representatives. The sec- 
ond difficulty, also one of representation, was between 


slave states and free states. The South wanted the 
slaves to be counted for representation but not for 
taxes. This was compromised by allowing the South 
to count three-fifths of the slaves for representation. 
The third difficulty was between the agricultural states 
and the states engaged chiefly in trade. The states 
engaged in trade wished Congress to regulate commerce 
while the agricultural states feared central control and 
preferred to have each state make its own trade laws. 
This was compromised by granting to Congress the 
power of regulating trade by a majority vote and by 
allowing slave trade to remain open until 1800. These 
compromises were arrived at after nearly four months 
of patient — and impatient — verbal struggle. 

There were times during the sitting of the Convention 
when it seemed that nothing could make the delegates 
come to any agreement. Indeed, certain indignant 
members " bolted," and went home, refusing to return. 
While the question of representation by states or by 
population was being discussed, the Convention nearly 
went to pieces. Thereupon Washington gave the mem- 
bers a strategic recess of several days that they might 
have time to calm themselves. In the end the cause of 
union was saved by good-will and compromise and a 
new species of government, partly federal, partly na- 
tional, was proposed to the states for their approval. 

The Constitution, founded as it was on compromises 
— a yielding here and an overlooking of principles 
there — held, for this very reason, the seeds of future 
strife. The members did not modify their opinions as a 
resulh of taking counsel; they were not converted to 
each other's opinions ; they remained unconvinced and 
yielded merely in order to get some sort of practical 



Nevertheless it was the three great compromises that 
laid the foundations of our Federal Constitution. The 
first compromise, bj allowing equal representation to 
the states in the Senate, won the small states to the 
new scheme, and by making population the basis of 
representation in the lower house, prepared the way 
for a strong and permanent government. This first 
compromise was Madison's great victory, without which 
nothing could have been effected. The second com- 
promise which allowed three-fifths of the slaves to be 
represented won over the slave states. The third com- 
promise, while allowing foreign slave trade to go on 
for twenty years longer, secured free-trade between 
states, and gave control of foreign trade to the federal 
government. This part of the road having been cov- 
ered in safety, the rest of the journey was completed 
without danger of a complete breakdown. 

The Constitution had two vital defects. One of these 
was a question of principle — the recognition of slav- 
ery. The other was a question of definition — the lack 
of a clear limitation of " States Rights," which should 
specifically deny the right of a state to withdraw from 
the Union. The delegates showed a guilty reluctance 
to use the word " slave." For seventy-seven years 
slavery existed without being mentioned in the organic 
law of the country, the word appearing in the Consti- 
tution for the first time in the Thirteenth Amendment. 
As for the question of States Rights, there is no doubt 
that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it 
was generally understood that any state could with- 
draw from the Union if it so desired. It took the War 
of Secession to settle both these questions. 


But it must not be forgotten that, after all, these 
two defects made possible a United States of America. 
If slavery had been cast out by the men at Philadelphia 
in 1789, no Constitution for a union of states could 
have been made. If there had been a clear statement 
to the effect that the central government was superior 
to the state government, or that the state government 
was superior to the central government, the votes of the 
members would probably have been about equally 
divided. Imperfect though the original instrument was, 
it has served to hold together our United States. 


The work of the Convention was, as Hamilton him- 
self said, a compound of errors and prejudices as well 
as of good sense and wisdom. It was largely worked 
out from the actual experience of the framers, although 
some of its provisions had never been tried in prac- 
tice. Thus the body that made the laws, was to have 
nothing to say concerning the constitutionality of the 
laws ; and the executive branch which carried out the 
laws was to have nothing directly to do with the mak- 
ing and judging of the laws; nor was the judicial 
branch to be concerned in any way with the making or 
execution of the laws. Yet the President, as chief 
executive, was given the veto power on all laws passed 
by Congress; he was also allowed to appoint the judges 
of the Supreme Court, who hold their offices for life 
and sit in judgment on all the work of the law-making 
body; the legislative branch, through the Senate, was 
empowered to assist the President in foreign affairs such 
as treaties, the appointment of ambassadors, and like 
matters; while the Senate was declared the judging 
body in case of the impeachment of the President. 


Whether the Senate, which until recently has not been 
controlled directly by the votes of the people, is a help 
or a hindrance to effective government has often been 
questioned. The men who made the Constitution con- 
sidered it a helpful restraint on the House of Repre- 
sentatives. And again, whether this whole system of 
checks and balances always tends toward a better car- 
rying out of the " sense " of the country, or whether 
the complete separation of powers is always desir- 
able for the common welfare, are matters that have 
by no means been settled to everyone's satisfaction. 
The whole system was devised as a means of check- 
ing hasty and unwise legislation. If carried to its 
logical conclusion, this system might produce noth- 
ing more than a deadlock, which is at best a state 
hardly calculated to make the transaction of business 

The office of chief executive having had no counter- 
part in colonial assemblies, the members of the Con- 
stitutional Convention were at sea when it came to that 
matter. A triple executive, a sort of elective trium- 
virate consisting of three men, was suggested, but no 
action was taken on the suggestion. Roger Sherman 
proposed that an executive committee be elected from 
the House of Representatives, an arrangement that 
would have resulted in a system similar to the English 
Cabinet system. The proposal fell on deaf ears, as no 
one present realized that such a system might result 
in a more democratic form of government than one 
which had at its head a single executive elected outside 
of Congress. Many of the framers dreaded a king; 
others shuddered at the thought of a republican Crom- 
well. They all desired a dignified executive, with lim- 
ited power. Finally, they decided on a " President," 


selecting the title because it contained no reminder of 
the hated royal governors. 

As the makers of the Constitution had had but little 
experience with the office of chief executive, they had 
a very amicable time discussing the matter. The 
method of electing the President that was decided upon 
was an entirely new device, hitherto untried by any 
government. It was never intended that the people 
should elect the President directly, as it was thought 
that a select group of men could better judge the fit- 
ness and merits of candidates for the high office than 
could the mass of uninformed voters. He was to be 
chosen by " electors " who should get together and 
actually name the chief executive as a result of their 
own deliberations. The Constitution made no provi- 
sion for party conventions which at the present time 
select the candidates for President. 

After the members of the Convention had finally 
agreed upon the provisions of the Constitution, it was 
turned over to a Committee on Style of which Gouver- 
neur Morris was Chairman. To him is due the pre- 
cise and fitting wording of the Constitution, as it is 
recorded that he revised and " draughted the document 
with his own hand." When the Constitution was com- 
pleted, the members that had stayed to the end, drew 
together and swore to defend the work of the Conven- 
tion. Not one of them was completely satisfied with the 
result of their labors yet the thirty-nine who signed it 
stood by its ratification. Three refused to sign — 
Randolph and Mason of Virginia and Gerry of Massa- 
chusetts. The signatures represented twelve states. 

The work of the Convention finished, the framers, re- 
lieved that something had been accomplished, yet doubt- 
less fearful of how their work would be received, 


smoothed down their laces, settled their wigs, put on 
their three-cornered hats, and, collecting their belong- 
ings, prepared to depart from Independence Hall. 
Their carefully constructed plan was still to be sub- 
mitted to the suspicious and not altogether open- 
minded people of thirteen states. 

So it was that the Constitutional Convention sent 
forth, not the amended Articles of Confederation to 
be ratified by all of the thirteen states, but an entirely 
new scheme of government. The members of the Con- 
vention behind closed doors had set afoot a very real 
revolution which awaited the approval of at least nine 
of the thirteen states to make it fundamental law. 


The labor of the framers did not cease with the 
close of the Convention ; the duty of securing ratifica- 
tion by the nine necessary states devolved upon them. 
This was not an easy thing to do for many true patriots 
were against the Constitution, some because the Conven- 
tion had exceeded its authority, others because of the 
fear of kings. Madison and Hamilton defended the 
work of the Convention in a masterly set of essays 
which, collected as " The Federalist " papers, are re- 
garded as among the highest authorities on constitu- 
tional law. A flood of pro and con pamphlets deluged 
the land — " Cato," " Agricola," " Rex," and " Veri- 
tas " became vociferous and even abusive. Poor unof- 
fending James Wilson was burned in effigy, Madison 
and Hamilton were stigmatized as mere " boys," even 
Washington was called a " born fool," and Franklin 
" an old dotard." " We the people " instead of " We 
the states " lost the support of such men as Patrick 
Henry and Richard Henry Lee who fought hard against 



ratification. Samuel Adams was brought over only by 
the expression of approval from the mechanics of Bos- 
ton, a hesitancy on his part that later cost him the 
position of Vice-President. Jefferson, still abroad, 
was consulted by letter. He advised that a Bill of 
Rights securing personal freedom and protection of 
human rights be appended before the Constitution was 


1. The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be suffi- 
cient for the establishment of this constitution between the states 
so ratifying the same. 

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present, 
the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the inde- 
pendence of the United States of America the twelfth. In 
witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names. 

Presidt. and deputy from Virginia. 


John Langdon, 
Nicholas Oilman. 


Nathaniel Gorham, 
Rufus King. 


Wm. Saml. Johnson, 
Roger Sherman. 


Alexander Hamilton. 


Wil. Livingston, 
David Brearley, 
Wm. Paterson, 
Jona. Dayton. 


B. Franklin, 
Thomas Mifflin, 
Robt. Morris, 
Geo: Clymer, 
Tho: Fitzsimons, 
Jared Ingersoll, 
James Wilson, 
Gouv: Morris. 


Geo: Read, 
Gunning Bedford, 

John Dickinson, 
Richard Bassett, 
Jaco: Broom. 


James M'Henry, 
Dan: of St. Thos. 

Danl: Carroll. 


John Blair, 

James Madison, Jr. 


Wm. Blount, 
Rich'd Dobbs 

Hu. Williamson. 


J. Rutledge, 
Charles Cotesworth 

Charles Pinckney, 
Pierce Butler. 


William Few, 
Abr. Baldwin. 

Attest : 



ratified. Presently many states came in stipulating 
that this be done. 

One by one the states signified their acceptance of 
the Constitution — Delaware the first and New Hamp- 
shire the last of the nine. Hamilton swung the New 
York convention, into line by the power of his eloquence 
and logic amid the acclaim of the tallow-chandlers and 
the pump-and-block makers who marched the streets 
in honor of the " New Roof." At last, in 1789, with 
George Washington as President, the national govern- 
ment of the United States of America began to operate 
with the Constitution as the fundamental law. 


A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limi- 
tations, and easily changing with deliberate changes of popular 
opinion, is the only true sovereign of the people. 

The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community 
of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do them- 
selves in their separate individual capacities. In all that the 
people can individually do as well for themselves, government need 
not interfere. 

Abraham Lincoln. 

A study of the Constitution of the United States may 
well occupy a lifetime ; for though the provisions of 
the great document seem fairly plain at first glance, 
their working-out in actual practice make up a compli- 
cated system that might often puzzle the boldest in- 
vestigator. But plain Americans must at some time 
make a beginning of the study, if this government is 
to continue a government of the people. By all signs 
the present would seem to be none too soon. 


In order to compare our government with other 
" popular " governments the following primary defini- 
tions must be formulated: 

A pure democracy is one in which every person in the 

unit of government takes part directly in the making of 



the laws. No such political state is in existence to-day, 
as it would not be practical on a large scale. An or- 
dinary school debating society is an example of pure 

A republic is a form of government in which the 
people rule by means of representatives that they 

A centralized republic is one whose governing powers 
are all in one body. There may be divisions or prov- 
inces made by the central government for convenience 
in administration, but all legislation is enacted by the 
central government. France is a centralized republic. 

A confederate republic is a mere league of sovereign 
states which deals and acts with states, not with indi- 
viduals. The individual is taxed, judged, and bound 
by the laws of the state only. It is a sort of feudal 
system of government on a large scale. The South 
during the War of Secession — from 1861 to 1865 — 
was a confederate republic, as its name, " The Confed- 
erate States of America," indicated. 

A federal republic, such as is the United States of 
America, lies between the centralized republic and con- 
federate republic ; it is a union of states, but it is also a 
nation made by the union of states. The individual 
owes allegiance to the nation and is governed by its 
laws. But the states are inviolable ; that is, they have 
powers, rights, and authority of their own, which ex- 
ist apart from the federal government and which the 
federal government cannot take away. No state, how- 
ever, can pass laws contrary to the Constitution of the 
United States. The two facts that the state is a sov- 
ereign unit within a sovereign unit and that ours is a 
representative democracy, must always be kept in mind 
in any study of our Government. 



The very best rehearsal of the provisions of the or- 
ganic law of the United States is to be found in the 
document itself. The Constitution begins with the of- 
ten repeated Preamble : " We, the People of the 
United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, 
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide 
for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, 
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and 
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTI- 
TUTION for the United States of America." 

Article I of the Constitution deals with the legisla- 
tive branch, the Congress. In this article the powers 
of Congress to make laws are distinctly enumerated and 
other powers are distinctly denied. The powers and 
restrictions of the states are also plainly set forth. 
The " immemorial " right of the popular assembly to 
originate bills for the raising of money is confined to 
the House of Representatives ; the power of declaring 
war and of raising and supporting an army and navy 
is delegated to the Congress as a whole, not to the Presi- 
dent ; the power of impeachment is vested in the Senate. 
This power of impeachment, which in practice can sel- 
dom be resorted to, is the only provision made in the 
Constitution to insure responsible officers. 

At the end of Section VIII, Article I, after the 
enumeration of the specific powers of Congress, occurs 
the renowned " elastic " clause which has been stretched 
and contracted to suit the particular needs of particular 
policies many a time. It is as follows : " Congress 
shall have power to make all laws which shall be neces- 
sary and proper for carrying into Execution the fore- 
going Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Con- 



stitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
any department or officer thereof." 

Article II deals with the executive branch, the Presi- 
dent. Of him alone was it stipulated that he should 
be a native of the United States or a citizen at the time 
of the adoption of the Constitution. This last was 
written with Hamilton, James Wilson, and Robert 
Morris — all foreign-born — in mind. The exact 
words of the oath of office in which the President 
solemnly swears to protect and defend the Constitution 
of the United States are given in this article as are 
the " powers " and " duties " of the chief executive. 

Article III deals with the judicial branch, the Su- 
preme Court of the United States and such inferior 
courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and 
establish according to the Constitution. The Supreme 
Court of the United States consists of the Chief Justice 
and nine associate justices — whose duty it is to define 
the meaning of the federal laws by rendering decisions 
in cases which arise under the Constitution. It has 
original jurisdiction — that is, the proceedings are 
taken up directly in the Supreme Court — in all cases 
affecting ambassadors, consuls, and other public min- 
ister, and in those in which a state shall be a party. 
It has appellate jurisdiction — that is, in cases of an 
appeal from a decision of lower courts — in many spe- 
cific cases. 

In Section III of this Article occurs the following 
definition: "Treason against the United States shall 
consist only in levying war against them, or in adher- 
ing to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No 
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the tes- 
timony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on 
open confession in court." 


Article IV deals with the relations of a state to the 
other states and to the United States, provides for the 
government of territories, and guarantees a republican 
form of government to the separate states. 

Article V, which concerns amendments, states that 
the proposal for an amendment must come from two- 
thirds of the members of both houses of Congress, or on 
application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the 
states for a convention to propose an amendment. It 
further provides that the proposed amendment shall 
become a part of the Constitution when it has been rati- 
fied by three-fourths of the states. 

Article VI sets up the Constitution as the supreme 
law of the land and prescribes that all governmental 
officials shall be bound by oath to support its provisions. 

Article VII provides that ratification of the Consti- 
tution by nine states shall be sufficient to establish the 
Constitution as the law of the states ratifying it. 

Since the adoption of the Constitution that vener- 
able document of liberty has been amended nineteen 
times the two latest being the " dry " amendment and 
the woman suffrage amendment. 


The first ten amendments, adopted in 1791, contain 
what is in reality the Bill of Rights which the states, 
under Jefferson's advice, insisted on having added to 
the Constitution. They provide that Congress shall 
make no laws denying freedom of speech, or of the 
press, religious freedom, freedom to assemble, and free- 
dom to petition. They guarantee freedom from arbi- 
trary arrest and imprisonment, and a speedy trial on 
specific charges. They also specifically forbid exces- 
sive bails and fines, and the quartering of soldiers in 


private houses in times of peace. In a word, they sum- 
marize, up to that date, the results of the struggle for 
human liberty. 

The eleventh amendment, adopted in 1789, established 
the sovereignty of a state in judicial affairs relating 
to itself. 

The twelfth amendment, passed in 1804, changed the 
method of presidential elections, to make it possible to 
have the President and Vice-President of the same polit- 
ical party. Before the passage of this amendment, the 
candidate who received the greatest number of electoral 
votes became President. The one receiving next high- 
est became Vice-President. Thus, when John Adams, 
a Federalist, was President, Thomas Jefferson, an Anti- 
Federalist, was Vice-President. 

The memorable thirteenth amendment, passed in 
1865, prohibited slavery in the United States. 

The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, passed in 
1868 and 1870 respectively, placed negroes on the same 
basis of citizenship as white persons. 

The sixteenth amendment, passed in 1913, allowed 
Congress to levy an income tax. 

The seventeenth amendment, passed in 1913, pro- 
vided for popular election of Senators. 

The eighteenth amendment, passed in 1919, for- 
bade the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors in 
any part of the United States after January 16, 

The nineteenth amendment, which was written by 
Susan B. Anthony shortly after the War of Secession, 
reads as follows : " The right of citizens of the United 
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the 
United States or by any State on account of sex." 
This amendment was proclaimed law August 26, 1920, 


after nearly seventy years of effort on the part of its 

The Constitution of the United States, with the ex- 
ception of the nineteen amendments that have been re- 
hearsed, stands exactly as it was adopted. After it 
became the fundamental law, it was whole-heartedly 
accepted and for over one hundred years scarcely 
questioned. Never did a people with such good-hu- 
mored unanimity accept the decision on so fundamental 
a question and settle down so cheerfully to live and die 
under its provisions. 


But the operation of the government according to 
the provisions of the Constitution never has been easy 
to carry out, for the Constitution in operation has 
proved a very different thing from the Constitution 
of the books. Even a slight study of our history and 
institutions will show that the government has not 
worked out exactly by the rules laid down. It has been 
necessary to change the Constitution not onl}^ by for- 
mal amendment, but also by interpretation, by usage 
and custom, and by devices new to government. 

In consequence of the continually increasing activi- 
ties of modern life, it is not at all strange that it has 
been necessary to make great changes in the fundamen- 
tal law upon which the government of this great coun- 
try is carried on. To have this fact brought home, 
one has but to think of the increase in wealth, in busi- 
ness, and in commerce ; the virtual revolutions in meth- 
ods of manufacture, the introduction of the railway, 
the telegraph, the telephone ; and all the other bewilder- 
ing innovations that have crowded the century and a 
third since the adoption of the Constitution. While in 


1787, it took six perilous days to go from Boston to 
New York, it now takes scarcely so long a time, with 
infinitely less discomfort, to make a trip from Port- 
land, Maine, to Los Angeles, California. 

Except for the awful War of Secession, the modifica- 
tions in the Constitution have been made peaceably, 
sometimes by practices initiated by officers of govern- 
ment, sometimes after slow years spent in educating 
the popular will ; they have come sometimes by inter- 
pretation, sometimes by the unquestioned decisions of 
the Supreme Court ; sometimes they have been wrought 
out in heated political strife ; only once in a deluge of 

The position of the Supreme Court has caused it to 
have a very vital influence in settling the meanings of 
the Constitution. As every law enacted by Congress 
must be in harmony with the principles laid down in 
the Constitution, it is the duty of the Supreme Court 
to pass upon the constitutionality of the laws. If the 
Court finds a law to be out of harmony with the funda- 
mental law, it is declared null and void. Nothing but 
a change in the Constitution or a new interpretation 
by the Supreme Court can then remove the barrier of 
illegality. The decisions and interpretations of the 
Supreme Court during the first half century of the new 
republic had a powerful influence on the actual work- 
ing out of the government. 

It is not the Supreme Court alone that has been ac- 
tive in interpreting the Constitution, — statesmen and 
political parties have had a hand in the business. Al- 
most as soon as the Constitution was put into operation, 
questions arose concerning the legal right of Congress 
to make laws for purposes not expressly mentioned in 
the Constitution. It was claimed that there were other 


powers " implied " in the Constitution ; both in tlie pre- 
amble, which defined as one of the purposes of the Con- 
stitution " to provide for the general welfare," and in 
the " elastic " clause, which empowered Congress to 
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper " for 
carrying out the provisions of the Constitution." Thus 
at once political leaders and their parties became 
" loose " or " strict " constructionists, as it suited their 
purposes. In the later history of our government, these 
clauses have been stretched to allow the regulation of 
interstate commerce by establishing railroad rates and 
by the enactment of the Pure Food Law which forbids 
the adulteration of foods. Though the elastic clause 
supplies a dangerous method of virtually amending the 
Constitution, it has been used in all cases for the " com- 
mon good " of all the people in the United States. 


Not only have the provisions of the Constitution been 
variously construed, but practices unauthorized by the 
Constitution have become part and parcel of the prac- 
tical law of the land. One of these practices has to do 
with the President's Cabinet, whose members assist him 
in carrying on the government. There is no provision 
in the Constitution for a President's council, but from 
Washington's time the President's Cabinet has been a 
feature of the Federal Government. At first, members 
once appointed continued to keep their portfolios even 
when a new President was elected. But when Adams 
became President while his enemy, Alexander Hamilton, 
was Secretary of the Treasury, it was speedily seen 
that a change of procedure w^as necessary in order that 
the members of the cabinet might all belong to one 
political family. 


This thoroughly justified change of practice was the 
real beginning of the corrupting " Spoils System." At 
first, revenue officers — postmasters, marshals, and 
other officials — retained their places during good be- 
havior. But soon, because of the President's power 
of appointment, changes began to be made with each 
administration, while the number of new appointments 

Photograph from Underwood & Underwood 

A Recext National Convention for Selection of Party 


was gradually increased. Finally Andrew Jackson, 
who acted on the motto, " to the victors belong the 
spoils," began the practice of the wholesale clearing 
out of offices for new incumbents at every change in 
Presidential politics. Nearly 200,000 men — a vast 
host of office-holders — are now appointed by the Pres- 
ident. This " power of appointment " is the Presi- 
dent's chief source of political influence; it makes 
him truly an elected king with a limited reign. Civil 


service reform had done much to clear out the spoils 
system, though the practice of rewarding political 
henchmen with " political jobs " is yet far from being 
out of fashion. 

Though the electoral college was designed actually 
to elect the President, Washington had hardly been 
seated when the country began to fall into political par- 
ties — the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans. 
It was not long until national conventions were held to 
select party candidates, and thus one of the main pur- 
poses of the framers of the Constitution in instituting 
the electoral college was lost completely, for the electors 
merely cast the votes of the majority of people in their 
state, instead of themselves electing the President. 

The framers of the Constitution showed a decided 
aversion to paper money in any form, a clause pro- 
hibiting such an issuance being left out only because it 
was thought to be entirely superfluous. Yet in 1862, 
the United States issued paper money as legal tender, 
an act which, if the spirit of the framers of the Con- 
stitution was considered as binding, was certainly un- 


The greatest problem of the men who made the Con- 
stitution was to adjust the relations between the states 
and the central government so that each might have 
power to do its proper work without hindrance from 
the other. This was accomplished by establishing 
what amounted to two governments of the people in each 
state, " each in its own sphere, each supporting the 
other, and neither interfering with the other's affairs." 
Thus, a citizen of the United States owes double alle- 
giance — to his country and to his state. The War 


of Secession settled and forever silenced the question of 
whether or not the Federal Government has the power 
to compel the people of the states to obey the laws 
which they, the people of the United States, themselves 

To the American of the present time, the fact of 
state and national allegiance is scarcely realized. Yet, 
though the citizen ordinarily does not realize it, the 
state claims control in many more particulars than does 
the nation. All family relations — marriage, divorce, 
inheritance, education — all property and industrial 
conditions, criminal law, and suffrage, are under the 
immediate control of the state. 

Although the Constitution specifies the powers of 
Congress and the powers of the states and later on 
definitely denies certain other powers, there is, be- 
yond the permissions and the denials, a wide range of 
lawful latitude. Thus " Congress " according to the 
first amendment, " shall make no law respecting an es- 
tablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer- 
cise thereof." This does not forbid the states from 
" prohibiting the exercise thereof " ; in fact, in many 
states for a long time after 1787 religious tests were 
applied. There is nothing in the Constitution to pre- 
vent Minnesota from establishing a state church. 
The constitution of Minnesota, however, as of all the 
other states, does specifically forbid such a law. 


The United States Congress, until very recently, 
made all laws independently of the President, whose 
only " check " on them was his veto. In the actual 
carrying out of legislation, both houses are divided into 
a large number of committees to which the various bills 


are " referred." The committees consider the bills and 
bring up those that they " approve " for discussion 
and possible enactment. Any member of Congress can 
present a " bill " and while, of course, most of the bills 
are " killed " in committee, unnecessarily vast numbers 
are brought before each session of Congress. In the 
discussion of bills the members of the House of Repre- 
sentatives are restricted to definite limits. Until recent 
years the Speaker of the House wielded autocratic 
power over debate but of late his prerogative has been 
distinctly curtailed. Thus the government of the 
United States has grown to be a government by com- 
mittees in which no one is particularly responsible to 
any one else. In other words, the Constitution of the 
United States has failed to provide for the very im- 
portant feature of " responsibility " in government. 

This method of congressional government, or govern- 
ment by committee, as it is in use in the United States, 
may be better understood when contrasted with govern- 
ment by cabinet or by a responsible ministry such as 
is in use in Great Britain. The difference between the 
two methods may be shown by a comparison of the 
financial systems of the two countries. 


In England the finances of the government are man- 
aged in a careful and scientific manner. The Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer prepares an exact report of 
the expenditures of the year, giving the source of rev- 
enue and the income derived therefrom. This report 
shows on its balance sheet the deficiency or the surplus 
which must never vary more than $100,000 from the 
amount raised. Then from the heads of bureaus and 
departments, he gets most carefully itemized estimates 


of the proposed expenditures for the ensuing year. 
After the report has been thoroughly revised by the 
cabinet, the Chancellor reports on sources of taxation 
and proposes various methods of raising revenue. The 
whole report is then printed and embodied in a bill, the 
" Budget " for the coming year, which the Chancellor 
introduces into the House of Commons where he works 
with might and main to have the measure passed. 

In the United States the Secretary of the Treasury 
makes a report of the expenditures of the preceding 
year. Thus far the report is exact. Then he makes 
what is often a very much inflated estimate — based on 
recommendations from the heads of departments — of 
proposed expenditures for the following year. He adds 
suggestions for raising the money and sends the com- 
plete report to the House of Representatives. There 
his connection with the legislation on finances ceases. 
The Committee on Ways and Means then takes charge 
of raising the money; but once it is raised, they have 
nothing to say about spending it. The debit and credit 
sides of our government have little connection. The 
spending of the money is intrusted to nine or ten dif- 
ferent committees. Any member of Congress can 
bring in a bill asking for an appropriation. From this 
general grab-bag method of procedure, in which no one 
person or group of persons is responsible for expendi- 
tures, enormous waste results. Because our tariff is 
not for revenue alone, but for protection also, the 
amount raised has nothing to do with the amount to be 
spent, and the task is to find ways of spending the 
money. In fact, the national financial system of the 
United States is about as bad as it well can be. Only 
our immense wealth and great good-nature have allowed 
this system — or lack of system — to continue. Noth- 


ing of all this appears in the Constitution ; it has grad- 
ually and unconsciously " happened." The introduc- 
tion of a " budget " system is one of the questions that 
is, at the present time, frequently and vigorously dis- 
cussed in Washington. 


Because of the great size and consequent clumsiness 
of our legislative body, because of the growth of the 
volume of government business, because of the great 
number of technical questions that are constantly aris- 
ing, and, above all, because of the demand for speed in 
getting business done, there has, of late years, been a 
great rise in the importance of the President, an of- 
ficial whom the framers wished to be merely a sort of 
spokesman for Congress. The men of the Constitu- 
tional Convention would indeed be horrified at the wreck 
that has been made of their delicate and ingenious sys- 
tem of checks and balances, and at the influence 
which the chief executive of the United States now 
wields. He is not only the leader of his party in the 
government but he is truly the tribune of the people — 
the one person in the United States, who, if he so 
desires, can command the attention of all the citizens 
of the country every morning in the year. 

A great impetus toward this overpowering influence 
of the President was given during the administration 
of Theodore Roosevelt. It has continued and grown 
since that time largely in the interests of cfliciency. It 
has become necessary that things should move and the 
President, being the one man always at his post of duty, 
has been forced to take the reins of government into his 
own hands and drive the governmental chariot, no 
matter how rough the road may be. 


On the opening of Congress the President in his mes- 
sage " on the state of the country " presents before the 
two houses the measures that he wishes to have passed 
for what he conceives to be the common good. This 
message goes to the country on the same day that Con- 
gress receives it. The people of the nation watch the 
progress of the bills that are introduced. If they are 
going wrong or if outside interests are unduly influen- 
cing legislation, the President can sound the alarm to 
the country and thus drive the lobbyists out of the field 
or into darker corners. 

The measures that the President advocates are gen- 
erally put through. President Roosevelt used the 
" big stick " to accomplish that purpose. Even Presi- 
dent Taft, naturally of a judicial and slow-moving 
temperament, was once compelled in the last month of a 
session to crack the whip over Congress and virtually 
drive through the measures that he had advocated in his 
annual message. President Wilson carried the Presi- 
dent's influence still further. He cast aside the custom 
of sending written messages to Congress and, as was 
Washington's usage, appeared in person to address 
the National Legislature. 

The influence of the President of the United States 
is to-day the most striking feature of our government. 
He is the leader of the government if not the leader of 
the nation. This centering of the business of conduct- 
ing the government in the hands of one man makes for 
greater " simplicity, directness, and strength " and, in 
a sense, supplies that feature of ministerial responsi- 
bility to the popular will that our government has 
lacked. It is, therefore, increasingly important that 
really great leaders be selected to run for president 
that the right men may be chosen for this high office. 




In looking back over the history of the modifications 
that have been made in our government, not only by 
amendment and interpretation but by new practices, 
it appears entirely evident that the changes, taken as 
a whole, have brought the Federal Government much 
nearer the people than it was at the beginning and have 
thus helped to build up a greater realization of nation- 

Courtesy of AUyu and Baton 
The First Philippine Assembly, 1907 

The process, however, is by no means completed and 
ways are constantly being sought to more justly ex- 
press the popular will. Among the plans recently de- 
vised to bring about a more direct control by the peo- 
ple, are the initiative , the referendum, and the recall. 
These have been introduced, not only in city govern- 
ments, but in many state governments. The initiative 
enables a group of citizens to bring a desired measure 
before the legislative body, without the necessity of wait- 
ing for its presentation by a legislator ; the referendum 
calls for ratification by the people of any measure affect- 



ing them ; the recall "is the gun behind the door," which 
secures responsible officers of government by making it 
possible to unseat an unsatisfactory official by a vote 
of the people who elected him. The efficacy of these 
new schemes for expressing the popular will has not 
as yet been fully proved, but they at least show the fun- 
damental desire on the part of the vast majority of the 
people of the United States to make the government of 
this country really and truly a government of all the 





Forever alive, forever forward, 

Stately, solemn, sad, withdrawn, baffled, mad, turbulent, feeble, 

Desperate, proud, fond, sick, accepted by men, rejected by men, 
They go ! they go ! I know that they go, but I know not where 

they go. 
But I know that they go toward the best — toward something 

great. Walt Whitman. 

Among the factors or movements that have inter- 
acted upon each other and upon the constitutional 
growth of the government may be noted the rise of 
political parties, slavery, the tariff, the westward ex- 
pansion and free land, the industrial revolution, the 
growth of labor and labor unions, and the extension 
of popular education. These movements have not 
been distinct and separated streams of influence; they 
were, rather, indistinguishably mixed in the current of 
American affairs. But because they have given a rec- 
ognizable color to the onflowing life of the government 
of the people, it is helpful to consider separately each 
of these determining features of American development. 


Political parties began to be formed almost as soon 

as our government was established. The division first 



came because of two views of the purposes of govern- 
ment, one of which was championed by Hamilton and 
the other by Jefferson. Hamilton, who headed the 
Federalist party, was in favor of a strong national gov- 
ernment controlled by " the well-educated and well- 
born," which should be properly used to protect com- 

TiioMAs Jefferson 

merce and industry against foreign competition. Jef- 
ferson, as spokesman of the anti-P'ederalists who called 
themselves Republicans to show their hatred of mon- 
archy, and favored strengthening the state govern- 
ments, hoped that the United States would become a 
nation of small independent land-owners. 



From the first, the contest was a heated one, much 
to the distress of Washington, who spoke severely 
against the " baneful effects " of the spirit of party 
and the disorders and miseries which resulted from it. 
John Adams, too, was horrified at the " unwarranted 
and indecent attempts of sending agents with printed 
votes." But, in spite of this disapproval, the party 
breach widened, with a question of a " liberal construc- 
tion " of the Constitution 
as the dividing line. 
Both parties in turn 
used the liberal construc- 
tion to suit their own 
ends, a practice which 
after a time made Con- 
gress the dominant force 
of our federal system of 

Washington and Adams 
were Federalists, the 
four Presidents following 
— Jefferson, Madison, 
Monroe, and Adams — 
were Republican-Demo- 
crats as the anti-Federalists came to be called. The 
Federalist Party disappeared at the close of the War 
of 1812, after the leaders in the Hartford Convention 
had threatened to secede from the Union because trade 
was being interfered with. 

Monroe's administration (1817-1825) was the Era 
of Good Feeling, there being no party issues during hi^ 
two terms of office. But soon the tariff question began 
to be felt as a cause for division — the manufactur- 
ing North seeking protection for its industries, while 


After an engraving by J. Rogers 
from the Talleyrand miniature 


the agricultural South advocated free trade. 

By the close of Jackson's first term, the Republican- 
Democrats had become simply Democrats, a name which 
they have since that time retained. By this time the 
National Republicans formed a new party, standing for 
principles similar to those of the Federalists. After a 
time, members of the new party called themselves Whigs. 

The Whig party, of which for many years Henry 
Clay was the leader, stood for a strong Federal Gov- 
ernment, a liberal construction of the Constitution, per- 
manent internal improvements, a protective tariff, and 
the national bank. The Democrats, on the whole, stood 
for the Union, which had already been attacked by 
Calhoun and the believers in nullification, but they op- 
posed a high tariff, internal improvements, and the 
national bank ; they advocated government directl} 
under the control of the people. The Whigs succeeded 
in electing William Henry Harrison in 1840 but failed 
to carry out their program because of Harrison's early 

By 1840, the slavery question, which had always had 
its influence came openly to the front and a new politi- 
cal party, whose chief plank was opposition to slavery, 
grew out of the old Whig and Democratic parties. 
The leaders in this movement named the organization 
the Liberty party but later called themselves the Free 
Soil party. 

Finally in 1854, the Whig party having in turn gone 
to pieces, the Republican party held its first national 
convention. Many anti-slavery Democrats joined the 
new party which demanded that slavery be prohibited 
in the territories and that Kansas be admitted as a free 
state. At the second national convention of the Re- 
publican party in 1860, the platform declared against 


slavery in the territories, and stood for a protective 
tariff and free homesteads. " The agricultural South 
and the industrial North were pitted against each other 
with the free farmers of the West holding the balance 
of power." 

Since the War of Secession, the Democratic and Re- 
publican parties have stood in the main for the princi- 
ples on which they were formed, old planks dropping 
out of their platforms as they became dead issues while 
new ones were added as new conditions arose. The 
Democrats stand for low tariff, greater popular con- 
trol, and against imperialism or annexation by con- 
quest; the Republicans for high tariff, for an imperial- 
istic policy, and generally for a narrower control of 
the government. 

The Republican party held unbroken power from 
the time of the War of Secession to 1885. Since that 
time McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft have been Repub- 
lican Presidents ; Cleveland and Wilson, Democratic 

In 1912 the Republican party split and the Progres- 
sive party, headed by Theodore Roosevelt, was formed. 
This party endorsed presidential primaries, the initia- 
tive and referendum, popular election of United States 
senators, the short ballot, woman suffrage, legislation 
in favor of labor, a minimum wage for women and child- 
ren, protection of working people, and regulation of 
monopolies and trusts. In fact, the party made a de- 
termined effort to out-democrat the Democrats. 

The Democrats at the same period stood for a down- 
ward revision of the tariff, a tax on incomes, regulation 
of trusts and monopolies, labor legislation, and federal 
reserve banks to reduce the power of the great banking 


centers. Both parties made a bid for the labor 
vote which now holds the balance of power. In 1912 the 
Democrats succeeded in getting most of the labor votes 
with the result that Woodrow Wilson was elected Presi- 

Short-lived, small parties have been formed during 
late years but have not been able to gain many offices. 
The farming interests of the West have several times 
organized themselves for the sake of gaining political 
recognition. The first was the Greenback party which 
had a brief career during the late 70's. The Populist 
party, which came into life in 1892 on a free silver plat- 
form, was at one time able to muster a million votes, but 
soon declined. Its present descendent is the Non-Parti- 
san Le'ague which though not ye't recognized as a na- 
tional party has gained control in North Dakota 
where it is trying out some interesting experiments in 
state control of industries and public service utilities. 
The Prohibition party w^as never able to elect its can- 
didates to office in any great numbers, but that it has 
had a telling influence on the popular mind is clearly 
evidenced by the 18th amendment to the Constitution. 

The Socialist party which has existed as a national 
party for a number of years, has not been able to make 
much of an impression on national politics. Many of 
the votes it counts are votes of protest against the poli- 
cies and control of the two old parties. 

In 1920 the Farmer-Labor party was launched. It 
is made up largely of persons who are discontented 
with the present conduct of our government, but are 
not ready to subscribe to Socialistic doctrine. In their 
1920 conventions the Socialists and the Farmer-La'bor 
parties both put forth platforms advocating greater 
popular control of economic and governmental affairs. 


Political parties have had a great influence on the 
development of the government of the people. They 
have both helped and hindered. While they have been a 
powerful means of educating the people in the practice 
of carrying on government, they have also sometimes 
retarded progress. Thousands of voters have been 
party men, pure and simple : they were born Democrats 
or Republicans and they died Democrats or Republi- 
cans bequeathing their political faith to their sons. 
Measures proposed by one party, no matter how com- 
mendable, are generally opposed and frequently defeated 
by the other party, with seeming disregard for the wel- 
fare of the country as a whole. The candidates for 
office set up by either party have been savagely reviled 
by the members of the other and vital issues are often 
clouded by prejudice and party feeling. 

On the whole, however, political parties have done 
much towards the development of political democracy. 
In the heat and conflict of debate new and better ideas 
spring into life. The great questions which are to be 
decided are advertised, and in the long run, measures 
that are for the common good are agreed to by the 
majority of the people and made the law of the land. 


The slavery question is bound up almost inseparably 
with political parties, the industrial revolution, the 
westward movement, and other great features of our 
national life. Though as a political question, slavery 
is dead, the negro question is yet unsolved. Slaves 
were introduced into the South primarily to perform 
menial agricultural labor in that warm climate. Later, 
for many years, slavery existed in all of the thirteen 
states. When the Constitution was adopted, it was 
thought that slavery would die out of itself as it had 


already begun to die out in the North. But the inven- 
tion of the cotton-gin and the consequent increase in 
cotton production gave new Hfe to slavery in the South 
so that although the slave-trade was abolished in 1808, 
by 1860 there were about four million slaves in the 
United States. 

At first slavery did not show itself openly as an 
influence on politics, but it was not long until it began 
to divide the North and the South. Although one of 
the compromises of the Constitution had settled the 
question of representation in Congress, the question as 
to whether the federal government or the state govern- 
ments should regulate slavery in the new states and in 
the territories soon began to be fiercely debated. The 
discussion of the right of Congress to prohibit slavery 
" forever " north of the 36-30 line resulted in bitter 
sectional strife. Texas was admitted as a slave state, 
California as a free state; Utah and New Mexico were 
left to decide the matter for themselves; the Northern 
people refused to assist in capturing slaves; the South 
succeeded in getting the Fugitive Slave Law passed; 
the question of tlie admission of Kansas and Nebraska 
as slave or free states arose ; and the struggle for that 
territory between the North and the South began. 

In the meantime, the Abolitionist movement was well 
under way, and compromises for a time delayed open 
war. The South attempted to annex Cuba that addi- 
tional slave territory might be added to the United 
States. Finally, it became evident to thoughtful peo- 
ple that the country could not exist " half slave and 
half free." Not long after that, the War of Secession 
settled the question of slavery in the United States for- 

Since the abolition of slavery, the United States has 



had the still unsettled negro question to deal with. 
After Emancipation, the negroes, no longer slaves, were 
found utterly untrained and unfit to earn their living 
independently, or to use their vote intelligently. The 
politicians in the North wished to give the negro the 
vote at once. The people in the South, who naturally 
look upon the black man as an inferior, have made laws 
that have kept the vote from most of the negroes, in 

Courtesj' of Allyn and Bacon 

TusKEGEE Institute, Alabama 

Founded by Booker T. Washington for the advancement of the 
colored race. 

Spite of the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment freed 
the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment made them citi- 
zens and gave them civil rights, and the Fifteenth 
Amendment forbade disfranchisement " on account of 
race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Prop- 
erty, educational, and other restrictions have deprived 
most of the negroes in the South of the ballot. 


The negro question is still one of the urgent 
questions for the United States to solve. Opinion is 
divided as to how it should be settled. Whatever is 
finally done for the negroes, no one should oppose meas- 
ures to bring about a good degree of education, both 
industrial and cultural. Justi'ce demands nothing less, 
as justice demands a prompt and fair adjustment 
of this vexed problem. 


The tariff has been a live issue since the first tariff 
measure was attempted in 1781. At that time a flat 
tax of five per cent, was proposed on imported articles 
for three distinct purposes : to pay the national debt, 
to pay the Continental army, and to carry on the gov- 
ernment. In other words, the tariff was originally in- 
tended to be " for revenue only." The measure was 
rejected because under the Articles of Confederation it 
required the consent of every state, and Rhode Island 
refused consent as she was well satisfied with her own 
tariff laws by means of which she was exacting toll from 
her neighbors. 

The first tariff act was passed in 1789 as one of 
Alexander Hamilton's great financial measures. It 
was designed to pay the national debt, to carry on the 
government, and to encourage and protect manufac- 
tures — that is, it was a tariff both " for revenue " and 
" for protection." It provided a duty on all foreign 
vessels, on various foreign goods — wines, tea, silk, 
sugar — at varying rates. At once a division of 
opinion arose as to whether Congress or the states had 
the authority to regulate tariff for protection. 

Henry Clay, called the father of the protective tariff, 
was responsible for the tariff of 1816, the first definitely 


protective measure which laid an import tax on cottons, 
woolens, and manufactured iron. At that time there 
was a real need of protection to American manufac- 
tures because of the " dumping " of foreign goods, 
which had accumulated during the War of 1812, on 
American markets. In the South, John C. Calhoun, a 
Republican-Democrat of South Carolina, favored the 
tariff because he thought it would affect the cotton 
market favorably ; Daniel Webster, a Federalist of 
Massachusetts who represented a commercial and ship- 
ping business, opposed it because he felt that any tariff 
would tend to restrict commercial relations with Eu- 
rope. Later the North and South reversed positions. 
In the main, the agricultural South has favored a low 
tariff because it had no manufactures that needed pro- 
tection but desired imported articles at the lowest pos- 
sible prices, while the manufacturing North has sought 
a high tariff that would protect its growing industries 
from foreign competition. From this it is seen that the 
protective tariff was favored by the interests that would 
be helped by protection. 

The tariff for protection, called the American Sys- 
tem, increased in favor as a national policy, until the 
" Tariff of Abominations " of 1828, passed largely as a 
political measure to make President John Quincy Adams 
unpopular, raised the average of taxed articles forty- 
nine per cent. It had the desired effect and Jackson 
was elected President. This extreme measure opened 
up the question of " nullification " ; for South Carolina, 
refusing to pay the unreasonable rates, began to pre- 
pare for war. By this time New England with its large 
manufacturing interests, was in favor of a protective 
tariff, while the South, largely dependent upon Europe 
for its farm machinery, and other manufactured goods. 


was hotly opposed to It. To prevent a rupture, Clay 
stepped in with the compromise tariff of 1833 which 
greatly reduced rates on imported articles ; whereupon 
South Carolina repealed her Nullification Ordinance. 

A period of low tariff followed until the duties were 
more moderate than they had been in 1816. In Polk's 
administration (1844-1848), the tariff sank so low 
that it was merely a measure for carrying on the gov- 
ernment. In Buchanan's administration (1857-1861), 
the first tariff measure since 1816, not affected by poli- 
tics, was passed. 

During the War of Secession, an increase of duties 
came about as a natural result of the need of money to 
carry on the war and of the influence of profiteering fi- 
nancial leaders. As a consequence, protection ran riot ; 
every one who asked protection got it. The tariff act 
passed during the war forms the basis of the present 
tariff system. After the war internal taxes were re- 
duced and tariff duties increased. 

The tariff question was the leading issue between the 
Democratic and Republican parties from 1870 to 1911. 
Since that time, though it is by no means dead, ques- 
tions of Capital and Labor have in a measure crowded 
the tariff issues out of the public mind. During that 
period though tariff rates fluctuated, on the whole, the 
great industries were adequately protected. 

In Cleveland's first term (1884-1888), an unsuc- 
cessful attempt was made to reduce the tariff; in Harri- 
son's administration (1888-1892), the McKinley bill 
brought the acme of high protection in which the con- 
sumer paid the bill. Efforts have of late been made to 
find out whether there is any real need of a burdensome 
tariff. Other sources of revenue have been provided 
such as the corporation tax, and the inheritance tax. 


President Taft tried to bring about Canadian " reci- 
procity," by which natural productions would be ex- 
changed between the United States and Canada with- 
out duties. This measure was opposed by the farmers 
of the Northwest and, as a consequence, party lines were 
thrown into confusion. In Canada the party that 
supported reciprocity was defeated and the bill never 
came up in the Canadian Parliament. In President 
Wilson's administration, the Underwood-Simmons tariff 
bill became a law and the tariff was reduced on many 
important commodities. To make up for the loss, a 
tax on incomes was levied after an amendment to the 
Constitution made such a levy possible. 

The tariff question which began when a revenue meas- 
ure with incidental protection for infant industries was 
passed, has grown from a small and comparatively 
simple factor in American government to one of im- 
mense importance and bewildering complications. The 
North, being chiefly engaged in manufacturing, has 
stood largely for high tariff; the South, mainly agri- 
cultural, has been solidly for low tariff, until the recent 
introduction of manufacturing into that section. As 
the West developed, its population was divided on the 
tariff question, according to whether it was engaged in 
agriculture or in manufacturing. The question in the 
main has been one of self-interest. 

In general, the Democrats, have stood for low tariff, 
and the Republicans for high tariff. During the last 
thirty years there has been a growing suspicion that 
the tariff is manipulated by the money power of the 
country for selfish ends. At the present time, party 
lines are not strictly drawn on the tariff issue. Many 
Republicans are losing their devotion to high tariff 
rates, while, on the other hand, many Democrats no 



longer stand for tariff for revenue only, but for a mod- 
ified form of protection. 


The Westward movement, which was caused by the 
fact that toward the West free land was to be had for 
the taking, has had a definite and direct influence on the 
growth of political and social democracy. Although 

?*4 * iV^ 

Going West 

the colonists who came over from Europe left be- 
hind them much of the paraphernalia of rank and class, 
they brought with them much more of it than is de- 
sirable in a country where the people rule. In the 
South particularly, labor of the hands was looked upon 
as degrading ; even in " democratic " New England, the 
tradesman and his wife always went to the inn-kitchen, 
while the " gentry " sedately passed to the parlor. 


But when the pioneers passed over the mountains or 
through the gaps into Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and be- 
yond, social distinctions fell ofF at once. Everybody 
was forced to labor with his hands, and the settlers 
naturally fell into the habit of lending aid to each 
other when help was needed, as in " raising " a house, 
husking corn, and at haying and harvest time. Men be- 
came truly " fellow-men " in the days of pioneer settle- 

The fact that every man owned his own land made 
for sturdy independence and honest pride in possession. 
The independent western pioneers showed a remarkable 
community spirit in working out questions for the com- 
mon good. From the beginning, the life and practice 
of the western country influenced politics. As the 
states beyond the Alleghanies were admitted to the 
Union, they came in with liberal constitutions granting 
religious freedom and wide suff'rage. The new common- 
wealths did not copy eastern politics ; they set up a 
jmuch more simple machinery of government. 

The westerners distrusted the moneyed people of the 
East, whom they believed were somehow getting rich on 
government money at Washington. They kept their 
few officers — sheriffs, county treasurers, and land- 
agents — constantly rotating, as they believed in pass- 
ing good things around. This new spirit, working 
against the life job in politics, continued to grow until 
the election of Andrew Jackson disturbed the tradition 
that the Secretary of State should succeed to the 
President's chair and gave the last blow to the already 
tottering Virginia dynasty. 

The more real democracy which resulted had in it, 
however, much of prejudice and perhaps justified dis- 
trust. The West continued for many years to be " dis- 


graced " politically. The homestead law of 1862, per- 
mitting settlers to take up farms without cost, gave 
great impetus to Western emigration. The West has 
remained " the land of the liberal air " ; the man from 
the West is free from many of the narrowing traditions 
of the man from the Eastern sea-board. Farmers' 
sons become lawyers, physicians, professors, business 
men, as well as farmers, and the mingling of '' cousins," 
city-bred and country-bred, cultured and home-spun, 
on an equal social footing, helps to break down " caste." 
The most remarkable and influential feature of west- 
ern expansion has been the fact that the movement has 
continued. After one generation had cleared the for- 
ests and settled cities at one place, the next generation 
has moved Westward. " This perennial rebirth, this 
fluidity of American life, this expansion Westward with 
its new opportunities, furnish the forces dominating 
American character." 


The growth of democracy has been powerfully influ- 
enced by the industrial revolution and the increase in 
the number of skilled and unskilled laborers. Although 
probably the greater number of people in the colonies 
were engaged in agricultural pursuits at the time of the 
Revolution, a healthy growth had begun in manufac- 
turing and ship-building. In all likelihood, however, 
the United States would have remained an agricultural 
country had it not been for the industrial revolution 
caused by the invention of machinery. The introduc- 
tion of steam and iron together in manufacturing, 
caused the rapid rise of factories, and the resulting em- 
ployment of hundreds of thousands of unskilled laborers 
tended toward greater democracy. 


Laboring men from the very beginning performed 
their share in bringing about democratic institutions. 
The Sons of Liberty who paraded the streets in the days 
of the Stamp Act wefe working men — laborers and 
artisans. The mechanics of Boston, though outside of 
the meeting, had an intelligent understanding of the ad- 
vantages of adopting the Constitution in 1787, as did 
the plainly clad farmers from up-State, who sat within. 
The pump-makers and ship-chandlers of New York 
were vociferous in their approval of the Constitution. 
Few of these men had the right to vote when the Con- 
stitution was set up, yet they helped the movement to- 
ward freedom in a very real way. 

When Capital began to be powerful and oppressive, 
the laborers and working-men formed themselves into 
labor unions. For this action they were punished and 
the unions broken up. A well-defined labor movement 
in the earlier half of the nineteenth century had been al- 
most forgotten until its records were recently unearthed 
by an industrious investigator. These early labor as- 
sociations stood for a platform that included universal 
education at the state's expense, a ten-hour day, the 
right to combine, abolition of imprisonment for debt, 
exemption of a laboring man's home and tools from 
seizure for debt, and a more liberal national land policy. 

After the great influx of foreign laborers, suffrage 
was by degrees extended to take in all male citizens of 
the United States. When the working-people began to 
ask for schools for their children, it was considered a 
very radical and unreasonable demand, as a school at 
the public expense was looked upon as a charity school 
attended only by paupers. 

The influence of the early labor movements on educa- 
tion and politics has been almost lost sight of because of 


the moral stress of the slavery question, which absorbed 
the attention of the country for half a century. With- 
in the last twenty years, however, labor has become a 
force to be reckoned with in politics. The laborer has 
assumed a more dignified position since his cause has 
been taken up by the great political leaders, who see 
that the party that is destined to live must have the 
support of labor. Socialism has had its influence on 
the labor question and while many employers still deny 
the right of the laborers to organize, it is coming to be 
accepted that labor is not a commodity that can be 
bought and sold and that laborers have the right to be 
safeguarded in health and morals. 

Some beginnings of a labor party have been made 
but, at present, it is likely that the labor unions and 
laboring men will continue to throw their influence with 
the political party that seems the most progressive. 
Since the war, a number of advanced labor programs 
have been put forth, one of which lays down the prin- 
ciple that in some way the tools of the laborers — in 
other words, the manufacturing plants — must pass 
into the control of the workmen, that they may share 
in the profits of the industries and have a voice in reg- 
ulating the conditions of labor. Thinking people every- 
where are looking for a better adjustment between capi- 
tal and labor to be realized by a greater democratiza- 
tion of industry. 


Education has had a marked influence on the devel- 
opment of the American government. In the colonial 
days in New England, while common schools were estab- 
lished that the children of church-members might learn 
to read the Bible, only the most elementary education 


was furnished for those who did not expect to enter the 
ministry or the learned professions. For such select 
pupils the Latin schools were the paths to the colleges, 
which at first, were merely theological schools. Girls 
received scarcely any formal education. In the South 
where the people lived on scattered plantations, the sons 
of the wealthy planters had private tutors while the 
poor people had no schools whatever. The first 
schools at public expense were pauper schools in which 
children received a meager education. By 1830 the 
labor unions began to agitate for public schools from 
which the stigma of charity should be removed. Such 
schools were established by degrees, though for a long 
time there was no connecting link between the elemen- 
tary schools and the colleges except the private acad- 
emy and the private Latin preparatory school. 

Early in the nineteenth century, academies — again 
for boys only — began to be opened in various parts of 
the country. Though these schools were originally in- 
tended to give preparation for college, the curriculum 
was generally more practical than that of the Latin 
school. Presently female seminaries for wealthy girls 
who showed an aptitude or desire for education came 
into existence. 

Though the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 specifi- 
cally encouraged education and provided that one sec- 
tion of each township should be public school land, 
there were no public schools in the United States up to 
1830. Thomas Jefferson, a century ahead of his time, 
had attempted to establish in Virginia a complete school 
system from the primary grades through the university. 
His plan had failed because the people were not ready 
for such a step. In fact, during the first fifty years 
of the Republic, no one was interested in popular edu- 



cation. The school lands in each township were not 
properly used; and therefore they were not much help 
to education. 

The University of Virgixia 

The finest example of classical architecture in America. To this 
work Jefferson devoted forty years of his thought and the last 
years of his life. He devised tlie entire system of instruction and 
every feature of administration. The University of Virginia has no 
President hut instead an elected Chairman; it has no set course 
of study, each student follows any line he chooses, degrees being 
granted after examinations; the faculty assumes that every student 
is a man of honor, the student body looks after delinquencies. To- 
day the University of Virginia is, to a great degree, the embodi- 
ment of Jefferson's views. 

By 1860, the first public high schools for boys were 
set up; these high schools had no connection with the 
primary system nor with the universities. Michigan 
was the first state to have a complete school system in- 


eluding the primary grades, the high school, and the 

Since the War of Secession, and especially within the 
last thirty years, schools have grown all over the 
country — public, private, parochial. Almost every 
state has its state university; every town of any size 
has a high school ; thousands of academies, business col- 
leges, parochial and convent schools, junior colleges and 
senior colleges have arisen almost over night. Rural 
education, though by no means adequately provided 
for, has taken great strides since the institution of con- 
solidated schools. Vast sums of money are spent for 
educational purposes, yet, in spite of that fact, whole 
sections of the country, particularly in the South, are 
practically without the means of education. 

The great public school system of the United States, 
taking in as it does the children of the native born and 
alien, rich and poor, cultured and unlettered, has been 
a true forum of democracy from which has come an 
aristocracy not of blood or wealth but of intellect. 
Nor should the work done by private and parochial 
schools be minimized. Hundreds of thousands of young 
Americans, native and foreign-born or of foreign-born 
parents have been trained in good citizenship in these 
schools. The spirit and influence of the training re- 
ceived in our public and private schools of all kinds in 
obedience to law and respect for constituted authority 
have been revealed in the records of the Great War. 
To-day the schools of America stand as a bulwark 
against the untried revolutionary movements that are 
threatening the peaceful development of the govern- 
ment of the United States. 


Immortal things have God for architect, 
And men are but the granite He lays down. 

John Boyle O'Reilly. 

When one lOoks over the list of American statesmen 
and tries to select the one who has had the greatest in- 
fluence in making the United States what it is to-day, 
he immediately sees that such a selection is impossible. 
No one man's statement of principles or rules of pro- 
cedure can be said to be the Bible of Americanism. 
In a sense, every American has given a shaping touch 
to his country's ideal. From the beginning, even be- 
fore the Revolution, there were marked divergences in 
political principles, which, at times, threatened to dis- 
rupt the new United States. But with the setting 
up of the Constitution, order was brought into being, 
because of the possession of a framework of funda- 
mental law sufficiently strong and sufficiently elastic to 
bear the strain of carrying on the government. 

Though each great American who engaged in the 
business of making America what she is to-day left on 
the country's institutions something of himself, that 
something was not altogether the result of his personal 
opinions or of his individual set of principles. His 
work has remained because in public life he clearly ex- 
pressed something that has been accepted by the 
greater number of American citizens as a part of the 

ideal of government or policy. In other words, each 



leader helped to crystallize the half-conscious ideals 
of American people into tangible and easily under- 
stood doctrines and to carry them into general prac- 

On the shining roll of honor stand the names of the 
men who may be called in deed and truth builders of 
American democracy: George Washington, Benjamin 
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, 
James Madison, John Marshall, James Monroe, John 
Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Daniel 
Webster, and Abraham Lincoln. Though the list 
might be extended, it could not be reduced by the re- 
moval of even one of these names, because these men 
above all others have left easily recognizable marks on 
the government of the United States. Other men — 
statesmen, soldiers, and public servants — will be long 
remembered for gallant deeds and worthy conduct, but 
these in a peculiar way stand before all others, because 
they helped to make clear and unquestionable the prin- 
ciples of government which have come to embody the 
American ideal. 


George Washington may truly be called " the Father 
of his Country." The name as applied to him is no 
empty title. No other man during the life of our 
nation has done so much as he did, in so many fields, 
over so long a period of time. The eloquent and cour- 
ageous Patrick Henry rendered great service for de- 
mocracy by molding public opinion at the beginning of 
the national period, as did James Otis and Samuel 
Adams ; Schuyler and Greene were valiant generals, who 
helped to carry the Revolution to a victorious finish ; 
Franklin labored untiringly in foreign courts and in the 


American assemblies of freedom ; John Marshall ex- 
pounded the Constitution for the first forty years of 
its life, convincing men that it would work in actual 
practice; Hamilton used his gifts of mind in framing 
and explaining the Constitution and setting up the 
financial system of the country. Each of these men 
was a leader in one or more particular lines, but George 
Washington played an active part in all of these fields 
and in each did notable work. He was in the thick of 
American affairs during the French and Indian war ; 
as commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Army, he 
proved himself to be a great military leader; with 
calmness and dignity, he presided over the Constitu- 
tional Convention and held the balance true ; as the 
first President of the United States, he performed the 
delicate task of setting the machinery of the govern- 
ment in motion ; under his eye, the financial credit of 
the country was established; he settled the policy of 
our foreign relations by taking a new and original 
attitude in his definition and practice of neutrality 
toward foreign powers engaged in war with one an- 
other; and when he was about to retire from office, in 
a wise and eloquent appeal, he pointed out the dangers 
of the future, and warned the young republic against 
" permanent alliances " that might hamper the develop- 
ment of the American ideal of government. 

Washington carried out every duty with a dignity 
and tolerant breadth of vision that has become a part 
of the American attitude of mind and rule of conduct. 
No American should neglect Washington's Inaugural 
nor his Farewell Address. Both set forth clearly de- 
fined principles and sensible warnings applicable to 
our own time. In the Farewell Address, Washington 


exalts the name of America ; urges the preservation 
of the Union as a whole, looks forward to close com- 
munication between the East and the West by land 
and water, warns against " overgrown military estab- 
lishments," which he regards " as unauspicious to lib- 
erty " ; urges in every untried extension of government 
"fair and full experiment'"'^ and denounces "mere 
speculation " in such cases as " criminal." 

He says in plain and familiar language, " The Basis 
of our political system is the right of the people to 
make and to alter their constitutions of government.^' 
He denounces " all combinations and associations, 
under whatsoever plausible character, with real design 
to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular delib- 
eration and action of constitutional authorities,''' He 
urges the importance of " institutions for the general 
diffusion of knowledge," and he says that " reason and 
experience both forbid us to expect that national mo- 
rality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." 
He warns the young republic against insidious foreign 
influence as baneful to republican government, but en- 
joins the keeping of " engagements " with perfect good 

In his Farewell Address — " These counsels of an 
old and affectionate friend " — there is scarcely a word 
that is not valuable to the thinking American of to-day. 
In the closing paragraphs he urges " harmony and 
liberal intercourse " with all nations, " consulting the 
natural course of things'' Time has proved that many 
of his fears were unfounded, that some of the policies 
recommended by him have outlived their day, but time 
has also proved that, after all these years, though the 
American ideal has become enlarged and broadened, 


its fundamental • principles, as set forth by George 
Washington, remain unchanged. 


Benjamin Franklin, another worker in many fields, 
was a pioneer American, who entered the struggle for 

Benjamin Franklin 

the establishment of the new nation at the very first. 
He drafted the rejected Albany Plan of Union in 1764; 
he was one of the committee that drew up the Declara- 
tion of Independence ; he was our foreign representative 
during the Revolutionary War, and, by his earnest 
efforts, won France to our aid ; he helped to make the 


treaty of peace that closed the war ; and, in his extreme 
age, he sat in the Constitutional Convention, where 
he did much to maintain harmony in that sometimes 
harshly discordant group of earnest men. He was a 
believer in the capability of the people to carry on a 
government and urged the educational value of the 
franchise on the masses. Franklin left the impres- 
sion of his personal character on American institutions 
— s'omething of his self-control, good humor, modesty, 
and pervasive wit. Above all, his practical common 
sense and native shrewdness have gone into the texture of 
the American spirit. Franklin was neither eloquent 
nor brilliant, but he was always sane, reasonable, 
sincere, and practical,, looking on life from the 
generous' point of view made possible by a keen sense 
of humor. 


Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of 
Independence, was another builder of the American 
ideal. The great document that is the best exposition 
of his fundamental beliefs is not only a piece of sound 
political wisdom, but its wording and form make it a 
notable literary production. Though a man of wealth 
and inherited social position, he was opposed to rule 
by a class. He felt that the laws of one generation 
should not impose burdens on following generations. 
Like Samuel Adams, he believed in the intelligence, 
fairness, and generosity of the people ; so much so 
that he was called all manner of names because he held 
" leveling " views, " a democratic scribbler," being one 
of the epithets hurled at him. When the Constitution 
began to operate he became a supporter of States 
Rights and upheld the doctrine of " nullification " be- 


cause he feared the tyranny of a strong central gov- 
ernment. He thought that the best government 
governs the least and that the world is too much con- 
trolled by governmental authority. Into the famous 
Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Terri- 
tory, he wrote a clause providing for religious free- 
dom, another for the encouragement of public educa- 
tion, and a third prohibiting slavery in that great 
public area. In 1805 he negotiated the Louisiana Pur- 
chase, by which the Territory of the United States was 
increased one-third. He founded the University of 
Virginia, one of the most remarkable institutions in 
the United States. Jefferson led the group that op- 
posed the policies of Hamilton ; he is looked upon as 
the founder of the Democratic party. 


Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson's political opponent, 
was in many respects the greatest constructive states- 
man that America has produced. He was one of the 
framers of the Constitution and joint-author with Mad- 
ison of the Federalist papers which even Jefferson — 
naturally not over-anxious to praise Hamilton — pro- 
nounced the best commentary on the principles of gov- 
ernment ever written. Hamilton opposed States 
Rights and the rule of the common people and firmly 
upheld a strong federal government to be controlled by 
the well-educated and the wealthy. He had strong lean- 
ings toward a monarchial form of government and if 
he had had his way, Washington would have been sad- 
dled with the title, " His Highness, the President of the 
United States and Protector of the Liberties of the 


But Hamilton made up for what the democratically- 
minded consider the error of his ways by his sound 
financial policy which strengthened the central govern- 
ment and set it upon a firm basis. He first insisted 
on the prompt payment of the United States' debt and 
then proposed that the Federal Government take over 
the debts of the sepa- 
rate states. As soon 
as this was' done, the 
Federal Government 
assumed greater 
strength and force, 
because the American 
citizens to whom the 
states owed debts 
were eager to su]) 
port the . govern 
ment that proposed 
to pay them. 

Hamilton also 
helped to establish a 
great National Bank 
in which the govern- 
ment was a sharehold- 
er and director. He 
claimed that the pow- 
er to establish such a 

bank was given to Congress by a " loose " construction 
of the famous elastic clause. Thomas Jefferson, who 
was in Washington's cabinet with Hamilton, opposed 
Hamilton's reading of the clause as a dangerous 
precedent, saying that " necessity is a tyrant's plea." 
Nevertheless, Jefferson at a later date was com- 

James Madison 

The Father of the Constitution. 
Author of the "Journal of the Con- 
stitution " and of the " Federated 


pelled to invoke the elasticity of the same clause when 
he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. Hamilton 
not only established a strong financial system, but he al- 
so helped infant industries by introducing a protective 
tariff. As may well be imagined, Hamilton and Jeffer- 
son were not an " harmonious concert of powers " in 
Washington's cabinet. Doubtless, the first President 
was much relieved when Jefferson resigned the port- 
folio of State. 


James Madison of Virginia, the fourth President of 
the United States, is not so attractive and spirited a 
figure as either Jefferson or Hamilton, yet his services 
to his country — often quiet and unpretentious — were 
of tremendous value. In intellectual power, Madison 
was surpassed by no other President before or since 
his time. He was not a mere party leader, but a man 
of large view, sympathetic understanding, and inde- 
pendent mind. His secret Journal of the Constitution 
and the Federalist papers, showed an unselfish devo- 
tion to this country unsurpassed by that of any other 
American patriot. 

Madison rightly opposed as unconstitutional the 
Alien and Sedition laws passed by the Federalists under 
John Adams. The " Alien Act " empowered the Presi- 
dent to remove from the country any alien whom he 
considered " dangerous to the peace and safety of the 
United States." The " Sedition Act " provided for a 
fine and imprisonment for writing or publishing any 
article intended to bring the government officials into 
contempt or disrepute. The Constitution expressly 
forbade abridgment of the freedom of speech and press. 


Because of these oppressive laws, the famous " Ken- 
tucky Resolutions," declaring that a state had the right 
to nullify an act of Congress, were adopted under the 
leadership of Madison and Jefferson. Virginia passed 
a similar protest phrased more moderately. The Ken- 
tucky Resolutions mark the beginning of the nullificp- 
tion struggle. 


John Marshall, another native of Virginia, was Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for 
the thirty-four years from 1801 to 1836. Naturally, 
his decisions had more influence in fixing the meanings 
of the Constitution than those of any other man who 
has sat on the Supreme Bench. He had done good 
work before he became Chief Justice ; for to Marshall 
and Madison, more than to any others, belongs the dis- 
tinction of securing the adoption of the Constitution 
by the Virginia state convention. Marshall's argu- 
ments in reply to Patrick Henry's eloquently expressed 
views against the adoption of a national Constitution 
were particularly telling. 

During Marshall's long term as Chief Justice, he 
upheld the Federalist theorists, who believed in a strong 
national government as opposed to state supremacy. 
He dominated the courts by his great learning, his 
masterful power of analysis, and his clearness of state- 
ment. He secured for the Supreme Court the pro- 
found respect with which it is still regarded; he ex- 
pounded the Constitution so as to make clear for the 
first time the nature of the national government ; and 
he forecast the line along which the nation was to pro- 
ceed, not only in judicial matters but in material de- 



velopment. He placed on a firm footing the principle 

of judicial supremacy over the laws of the national 


Marshall's contribution to international law was 

great, although that feature of his work has but recently 

been appreciated. 
His famous Dart- 
mouth Case deci- 
sion, which held that 
the Constitution for- 
bade the impairment 
of contracts, has of 
late been seriously 
questioned, as has 
the wisdom and jus- 
tice of his interpreta- 
tion that the Supreme 
Court is entirely and 
clearly superior to 
the Legislative body. 
Whatever may be 
the final verdict on 
such questions, John 
Marshall's services 
in helping to stabilize 
our government will 
make him remem- 

James Monroe 

As agent for Jeifefson he negoti- 
ated the Louisiana Purchase; under 
the influence of J. Q. Adams he pro- 
mulgated the Monroe Doctrine. 

bered as' one of the great builders of the American ideal. 


James Monroe of Virginia was President of the 
United States from 1817 to 1825, during the period of 
political harmony known as the " Era of Good Feeling." 
He was of Jefferson's party, being one of the men who 


negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. He was opposed 
by no candidate, the Federalist party having committed 
unintentional political suicide in the famous Hartford 
Convention of 1814, where some of its leaders tried to 
put local industrial interests ahead of the best interests 
of the nation at large. But if Monroe's administration 
was undisturbed within, it was troubled from without 
by the fear of the intervention of European nations in 
American affairs. The great nations of Europe which 
had united in the Quadruple Alliance were about to 
interfere with certain South American colonies that 
had broken away from Spain. To prevent such inter- 
ference, Monroe made a declaration in his message to 
Congress which has become famous as the " Monroe 
Doctrine " of history. 

The " doctrine " set forth that thereafter no Euro- 
pean power had a right to lay hands — either by way 
of interference, or by way of colonization — on any 
land on the western side of the Atlantic. In other 
words, the United States assumed the role of big brother 
to the rest of the New World with the exception, of 
course, of Canada and a few well-behaved colonies in 
the West Indies and South America which were under 
European domination. This mere expression of atti- 
tude on the part of the United States has ever since 
Monroe's time acted as a deterrent on European aspi- 
rations for new colonies in America. The Monroe Doc- 
trine is Monroe's great contribution to the i^merican 


John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, who probably 
was responsible for the promulgation of the Monroe 
Doctrine, was Monroe's Secretary of State. He is 


usually thought of as a disagreeable combative person- 
ality, because he was independent enough to break over 
the lines of political party. This characteristic was 
illustrated strikingly when as a United States Senator 
during Jefferson's administration, he upheld the Louis- 
iana Purchase, though he was a Federalist. Again, he 
voted for laws that laid restrictions on New England 
trade and so brought the wrath of the whole Federalist 
party about his ears. 

When Adams became President, he took up the ques- 
tion of internal improvements at national expense. 
This was a Federalist policy and like the protective 
tariff, one of the " burning " issues involving the ques- 
tion of a loose or a strict construction of the Constitu- 
tion. Adams's party held that the elastic clause gave 
the government power, among other things, to make 
internal improvements extending from one state to an- 
other, to impose a tariff for protection, and to charter 
a National Bank as had been done by Hamilton. 
These questions were made the issues at the next elec- 
tion and the Federalists, with Adams as their leader, 
were defeated. 

Adams, unlike other ex-presidents, re-entered national 
politics by becoming a member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. Up to this time he had not been particu- 
larly interested in slavery, but when the Southern 
congressmen succeeded in passing the " gag rule " 
which provided that all petitions concerning slavery 
should be " laid on the table " without being printed 
or discussed, Adams's ire was aroused. He stoutly 
maintained that such a rule cut off the inalienable 
" right of petition," long a traditional right of Eng- 
lish-speaking people. In season and out, he kept up 


his attack until he had aroused the country. In 1844, 
the gag rule was abandoned. 

In 1836, Adams declared in Congress that if ever 
the slave states threatened war, the national government 
could interfere in any way that military policy might 
suggest. Again in 1812, he voiced the startling prin- 
ciple that in case of armed rebellion, the President, as 
commander-in-chief of the army, had power to order 
the emancipation of slaves. At the time he was hooted 
at, but in 1863 Abraham Lincoln stood firmly upon 
this principle when he issued the Emancipation Procla- 
mation. Adams died at his work in the very House of 
Representatives where he had often stood alone in de- 
fense of the principles of democracy. 


Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, President of the 
United States from 1829 to 1841, unlike the presidents 
who had preceded him, was a man of humble birth and 
without education or other cultural advantages. Jef- 
ferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams, were 
all university-bred, scholar-statesmen, members of the 
" upper " classes. Jackson was a popular hero after 
the battle of New Orleans because of his record in the 
War of 1812 and as an Indian fighter in Florida. His 
election marked the rise of the " common " people to a 
new power, and was made possible by certain constitu- 
tional changes that had gradually come about in state 
governments, among which were the removal of property 
qualifications, direct election of governors, popular elec- 
tion of judges in the courts, and the removal of religious 
tests for suffrage. Besides these political changes, a 
social change had taken place favoring greater democ- 



racy, and demonstrating that the people were at last 
the " Sovereign People." Democracy was finding its 
p'ower, and Jacksonian democracy, which taught that 
the people might govern as much as they pleased, was 
shown to be of a different quality from Jeffersonian 
democracy, which taught that the people ought to be 

governed as little as 

Jackson greatly en- 
larged the pernicious 
" spoils system " by 
placing his political 
adherents in all fed- 
eral offices, small as 
well as large. He did 
this on the seemingly 
sound principle that 
rotation in office was 
salutary for democ- 
racy. He may have 
thought he was im- 
proving public serv- 
ice by a " clean 
sweep." He could 
hardly have realized 
that when used as a 
method of paying po- 
litical debts, the spoils system becomes thoroughly 

But if Jackson lacked political foresight on the spoils 
system, he' was on firm ground on the question of nullifi- 
cation. Since he had opposed the high tariff of 1828, 
South Carolina expected his support when Hayne made 
the speech which brought the " Liberty and Union " 

Andrew Jackson 

He advanced Popular Government 
and supported the Federal Union 


reply from Webster, and was sorely disappointed when 
he took an unalterable stand for the Union. When 
South Carolina threatened to secede, Jackson met the 
issue squarely and made ready to use force. He broke 
up the national bank, for which he has been severely 
blamed, although present opinion seems to incline 
toward approval of Jackson's policy. Looking at his 
work as a whole, Andrew Jackson must be considered 
one of the commanding figures in American History. 


Henry Clay of Kentucky must not be omitted from 
this enumeration of the Builders of Democracy. He 
was a signer of the Treaty of Paris, after the War of 
1812. He used his great influence in eradicating Euro- 
pean control from American countries, thus upholding 
the Monroe Doctrine and establishing our foreign 
policy. This service, though perhaps his greatest per- 
manent contribution to the American ideal, had been 
obscured by his work as peace-maker between the 
warring camps of States Rights and Union. He used 
all of the power of his splendid personality to bring 
the contending forces together by compromising their 
differences on slavery and the tariff. He thus staved 
off the War of Secession for thirty years. If Henry 
Clay had not lived, it is doubtful whether there would 
be a United States of America as we know it. His sin- 
cere " I would rather be right than be president " is a 
true reflection of his character. 


Daniel Webster's name invariably brings to mind the 
impressive scene in the United States Senate when that 



superb orator drew hims'elf together and delivered his 
great reply to Senator Hayne's speech in support of 
nullification. In words of living beauty, ending with 
the matchless peroration which concluded with the 
words, " Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and 
inseparable," he convinced the nation that lasting unity 
was essential to the common good. Years have passed 

since Webster's day; 
the War of Secession 
has been fought ; for- 
tunately the Union 
has been preserved. 
While thousands of 
influences contributed 
to this happy out- 
come, no single one 
was so great in its 
eff'ect as that golden 
speech of the " Ex- 
pounder of the Con- 
stitution," which 
clarified the ideals of 
the nation on this 
fundamental q u e s - 
tion. It created a 
strong feeling in fa- 
vor of the Union. 
In 1850, Webster yielded to a compromise with the 
South, a change of front that was never understood and 
consequently never quite forgiven. It is possible that 
he was angling for the presidential nomination, but 
whatever the cause of his yielding, it is a fact that his 
attitude on the compromise of 1850 probably pushed 
back" the War of Secessioip^ for ten j^ears and thus con- 

Daniel Webster 

His great work was to make strong 
the feeling for union 


tributed to the preservation of the Union by giving 
a longer time for sentiment in favor of a united nation 
to become more thoroughly crystallized. 


All the men who were makers of America's des- 
tiny up to Abraham Lincoln's time, had striven man- 
fully, through good and evil report, to work out a prac- 
tical form of government based on sound principles that 
would conserve their rights to all men. They had 
wrought to so carry on the government that the inter- 
ests of all the people might be served well ; they had 
engaged in political struggles in the confines of their 
own country and they had striven in foreign wars. 
There had been days of trial and days of peace, but 
they never had felt the framework of the government 
giving way beneath their feet. 

To Abraham Lincoln was reserved the supreme task 
of upholding the principles upon which the United 
States of America was founded while a great and ter- 
rific civil war was in progress. Lincoln saw each side 
of the controversy with understanding sympathy, but 
his decision fell on the side which has preserved the 
Union. Long before he had said '' This govern- 
ment cannot exist, half slave and half free " ; yet he had 
hoped that he would not be forced to the extreme meas- 
ure of emancipating the slaves. But when he became 
convinced that in order to save the Union he must crush 
slavery, he did not shrink from what he conceived to 
be his duty. 

On the field at Gettysburg, in the most lucid Eng- 
lish passage that America can boast, he uttered those 
words that have become the accepted formula of Amer- 
ican democracy. " Four score and seven years ago " 


runs the Gettysburg address which ends with the high 
resolution, " that government of the people, for the peo- 
ple, and by the people shall not perish from the earth." 
Of all the great American statesmen Abraham Lincoln 
comes nearest to the universal heart. His words are a 
text which contain the best expression of the American 

When the War of Secession was over, no treaty was 
deemed necessary. Lee's surrender closed the terrible 
struggle to preserve an indissoluble Union. The vic- 
torious North did not demand a punitive peace; no 
reparation, no indemnities were exacted ; no bloodshed 
by legal execution was made to pay the price of the 
civil strife. The question of the Union was settled 
forever ; States Rights bowed to Federal Power ; " other 
persons " ceased to be slaves. The obscure lines of the 
Constitution had been interpreted, not by the Supreme 
Bench, but by the deciding force of a sanguinary con- 
flict. The Constitution no longer admitted of possible 
misinterpretation ; its commentaries were complete. A 
new order of things may arise which will necessitate a 
change in the instrument of our government, but never 
again will it be necessary to go through the terrors of 
civil war to decide what the lines of the Constitution 


In this brief survey of some of the builders of 
the American ideal, there is revealed a body of in- 
spiring truth. The men who have had the greatest 
influence in shaping the American ideal of govern- 
ment, came, as it were, from the seven corners of 
the globe, from no one station in life, from no one 
party. Virginia gave more than her share — Wash- 


ington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, and Monroe ; 
Massachusetts gave John Quincy Adams ; Pennsyl- 
vania, Franklin ; New York is proud of her adopted son, 
Hamilton ; Tennessee of the sturdy commoner, Andrew 
Jackson; Kentucky, the border state, was a fitting 
home for the peacemaker, Clay ; granite-ribbed New 
Hampshire produced Webster ; and the great Lincoln 
hailed from Illinois. 

Fortune was careless as to the early advantages of 
these men. Washington, a landed gentleman, was the 
servant of all; Thomas Jefferson, the owner of a patri- 
archal estate, was a most ardent believer in the men 
of the people ; Hamilton, the Federalist, thrown on his 
own resources at thirteen, set up our sound financial 
system, and with Madison, an Anti-Federalist, wrote 
the great state papers that helped to make the Con- 
stitution the law of the nation ; Andrew Jackson, dem- 
ocratic in principles and a tyrant in actions, stood the 
unabashed equal of any potentate; Lincoln, the son of 
poverty and toil, saved the Union and freed the slaves. 
These men are the product of American democracy. 

Nor can any one set of political theories account for 
the individual legacy left to America by these builders 
of democracy. Jefferson, a Republican-Democrat, and 
a believer in States Rights, dealt the first blow at slav- 
ery ; Jackson, a Democrat, was the champion of the 
Union against nullification ; Lincoln, a Republican, 
" with malice toward none," understood the South even 
while he carried on the war against her. What these 
men wrought that was good for the country has ad- 
hered; what was unworthy has fallen away or been 
shaken off by the winnowing of time. We remember 
them only for their part in making the American Ideal. 



The ideal of America — the ideal of a " well-regulated liberty," 
che ideal of brotherhood, by which every man is our neighbor — 
is a noble one. The future of American literature must depend 
largely upon the faithfulness of the American people to their 
national ideals. H. S. Pancoast. 

Americans have always been a reading people. The 
printed word whether in the transitory form of tracts 
or pamphlets or periodicals, or in the more permanent 
form of books, has, therefore, exerted a potent influ- 
ence upon American life and character. 


American literature naturally divides itself into 
periods corresponding with the historical development 
of the country. The writings of the colonial period 
which consisted largely of historical records, letters of 
love and friendship, diaries and journals, elegiac poems, 
and chronicles of human experience were nearly all 
written in a religious tone, especially when the writers 
were Puritans. The contrast between the atmosphere 
of New England and Virginia may be seen by compar- 
ing the sober, austere, and gloomy writings of the 
Puritan, William Bradford, with the gay, entertaining, 
and hopeful work of the Cavalier, William Byrd of 




As nearly all of the early political leaders in Amer- 
ica were lawyers, oratory was the great moulding force 
of American life from the days of the Stamp Act to the 
War of Secession. During that time, when questions 
of state were debated by the representatives of the peo- 
ple in open assembly, by farmers and townsfolk on the 
village green, and by learned and unlearned alike, there 
was developed a body of intelligent citizens devoted to 
free government. All Americans are familiar with cer- 
tain history-making orations. James Otis's speech con- 
demning the Writs of Assistance, in which John Adams 
said American independence was born, is one of the 
great early American orations. Patrick Henry's 
" Liberty or Death " speech was another. George 
Washington's " Farewell Address " has proved a text- 
book for Americans. Andrew Jackson's Second Inau- 
gural stands the wear of time with Daniel Webster's 
immortal " Reply to Hayne." The oration most widely 
known is the briefest and most perfect of them all, the 
" Gettysburg Address " of Abraham Lincoln. 

The most notable writer of Revolutionary days was 
Thomas Jefferson. He has left his " Autobiography and 
Letters," besides the " Declaration of Independence." 
In 1774 he wrote a " Summary View of the Writers of 
America," an exposition of America's position, so con- 
vincing and so well stated that Edmund Burke, because 
of it, was inspired to write his great oration " On Con- 
ciliation with America." In that master pronounce- 
ment of Burke's he says of the American colonists : " In 
no country in the world is the law so general a study — 
all who read — and most do read — endeavor to obtain 
some smattering of that science. I have been told by 
eminent booksellers that in no branch of business, after 


tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as 
those of law exported to the plantations." 

Much of the Revolutionary War writing was in the 
form of doggerel ballads ; every event was sung in verse 
and eagerly devoured by ardent partisans. Moore's 
" Songs and Ballads of the American Revolution " and 
Sergeant's " Loyalist Poetry of the Revolution " con- 
tain much interesting material showing contrasting 
points of view. 

Benjamin Franklin left as a literary legacy liis " Au- 
tobiography " and " Poor Richard's Almanack." 
Franklin was practical rather than sesthetic and his 
work helped to form the American ideal which is a satis- 
factory combination of the practical and the idealistic. 
Nor must the " Federalist Papers " of Hamilton and 
Madison be forgotten. Those essays, out of all the 
thousands of pamphlets written at the time of " the 
tumult of the truth " caused by the discussion of the 
ratification of the Constitution, are the only ones that 
have lived. They have been remembered because they 
are great literature as well as sound constitutional law. 

None of the orators and political writers of the 
Revolutionary period ever dreamed that what they said 
and wrote w ould go down as American literature ; they 
wrote out of the fullness of their convictions — to urge 
to action, to persuade, to convince, to secure for them- 
selves and, their fellow colonials an unfettered chance 
to forward and control their own interests. But 
often their words caught the fire of a great ideal and 
they, being men of learning and taste, wrote in forms 
so fitting to the subject that their works have become 
part of America's permanent literary inheritance. 



Among the makers of distinctly American literature 
may be placed the names of Bryant, Irving, Cooper, 
Mark Twain, Longfellow, Whittier, Hawthorne, Lowell, 
Holmes, Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Lanier. All of 
these writers may fairly be said to have laid moulding 
hands upon the American ideal. Edgar Allan Poe is 
here omitted because, though perhaps America's great- 
est musician in words, his work, with negligible excep- 
tions, lacks the moral significance which marks the work 
of the great American poets. 


William Cullen Bryant (1794-1878) was a Puritan 
in his poetry. He was intensely American always and 
his work profoundly influenced our national life in its 
early days. Many of his poems reflect his sincere love 
of country and of her spirit of freedom; much of his 
poetry is religious and frankly didactic, as he intended 
it to be. " Thanatopsis " with its " So live that when 
thy summons comes," and " To a Waterfowl," have been 
the inspiration and the comfort of thousands of Amer- 
icans ; the " Forest Hymn," " The Prairie," " To a 
Fringed Gentian," " The Song of Marion's Men," 
" Evening Wind " and " Robert of Lincoln," all speak 
of the land of America. His poem, " The Antiquity of 
Freedom," voices in a poet's words what we believe 
concerning the right of a man to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. Bryant has a forceful message 
to all Americans. 

The first American to receive notice in Europe was 
Washington Irving (1783^1859). Through Irving, 


America entered into the splendid fellowship of contem- 
porary English literature. Irving's work was read 
with delight by Englishmen in the day of Byron and 
Scott. Moreover, Irving brought back from his so- 
journ in England and Spain something of foreign 
culture which helped the new republic to feel at home 
in Europe. Irving has endeared the Hudson River to 
all Americans by his " Legend of Sleepy Hollow " and 
" Rip Van Winkle." He made Americans know rural 
England in " Bracebridge Hall " and " Tales of a 
Traveller." Nor did he confine himself to literary sub- 
jects. He wrote a biography of George Washington, 
long considered the standard life of the first President 
of the United States. In the genial temper of his writ- 
ing, Irving expressed the trait of kindhness, which has 
been and still remains a national characteristic. 

James Fenimore Cooper ((1789-1851) told his tales 
freely, abundantly, joyously, showing in the very prod- 
igality of his powers, a certain American generosity of 
spirit. He wrote " The Spy," and the great series of 
Leather Stocking Tales. Though Cooper idealized the 
Indian, he made him real and substantial. He was 
true to human nature and showed a fine and just appre- 
ciation of upstanding manhood in the unmistakable 
courage and courtesy of all his characters. His books 
are wholesome; they are filled with the smell of the 
pines, the crackle of burning brush, the ripple of the 
waters of river and lake, and the story of the brave 
deeds of hardy men and gentle, though rather colorless, 
women. The real American has something of the 
rugged courage and innate courtesy of Cooper's crea- 

The days of strenuous conflict preceding the War of 


Secession produced little enduring literature ; " Uncle 
Tom's Cabin " alone remains to mark that troubled 


Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882) wrought 
consistently for America during a long life, helping in 
his own way to build the American ideal. He visited 
Europe and brought back to us the culture of the older 
nations, the poetry and lore of the Scandinavian coun- 
tries, of Germany, and of Spain. He helped to make 
America a little less provincial and thus brought closer 
the time of a real " Federation of the World." 

Longfellow's subjects were largely American; his 
"Evangeline," "Hiawatha," "Tales of a Wayside 
Inn," with its " Paul Revere's Ride," his " Courtship of 
Miles Standish," all these have helped to make Amer- 
ica realize herself. It is said that " The Courtship of 
Miles Standish " has awakened more interest in the 
Pilgrims than all the histories that have been written 
on the subject. Longfellow, perhaps more than any 
other poet, has placed his mark on American life. He 
wrote not for a select few but for all his countrymen. 
He remains the household poet, the poet of the young. 
"The Ladder of St. Augustine," "The Builders," 
" Excelsior," " Morituri Salutamus," with its splendid 
closing lines, march sturdily, though not, perhaps, as 
captains of the line, with " Ulysses," " Childe Roland 
to the Dark Tower Came," " Say not the Struggle 
Naught Availeth ! " and the songs of faith and courage 
of other poets. 

It is recorded that the sad heart of Lincoln found 
the relief of tears on reading the lines beginning — 
" Thou too sail on, oh ship of state," which Longfellow 


had written in 1840. In 1843 Longfellow voiced his 
view of slavery in " The Witness " and in the prophetic 
*' Warning." When the War came, he could not sing. 

The cause of abolition found one ardent advocate 
among American writers in the Quaker poet, John 
Greenleaf Whittier. Whittier's poems, dealing with 
slavery, began in 1833 and continued until the close of 
the War of Secession. They form a running commen- 
tary on the events of that time and are written with a 
fiery eloquence of which the reader of " Maud Muller " 
and " Snowbound " would scarcely suspect Whittier ca- 
pable. No American can afford to neglect this poetic 
record of a patriot's feelings as aroused by national 
events. They are the expression of the ideals of justice 
on which our country was founded. Whittier wrote 
" Ichabod," a poem of stern rebuke to Daniel Webster 
for upholding the Compromise of 1850. Thirty ^^ears 
later in " The Lost Occasion," the poet expressed re- 
gret that Webster had not lived to make his last days 
glorious in defense of the Union. Whittier's poetry is 
beautiful and inspiring yet always wholesome. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), poet and essay- 
ist, has left his mark on the American ideal. Much of 
his work is distinctly American. " The American 
Scholar," called by Holmes " our intellectual Declara- 
tion of Independence," is a plea for a breaking away 
from the traditional European models and standing on 
our own feet as the freemen of a new world. His 
" Self-Reliance " calls on the young American to hoe 
his own row in life. He exalted sturdy independence 
of the individual. The philosophy of life set forth 
in Emerson's prose has made America known the world 
over. His poetry, though not so great in bulk as his 
prose, is fine and beautiful. The familiar lines from 


'' Concord Hymn," " Here once the embattled farmers 
stood and fired the shot heard round the world," give 
the history and outcome of the American Revolution. 
Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) impresses one 
as a plain get-at-able American, a man of affairs, a 
family physican, a hail-fellow-well-met, and, at the 
same time, a poet of no mean ability. He is never too 
learned to be understood, never so much in earnest as 
to make one uncomfortable. He wrote on many dis- 
tinctly American subjects, dealing with events in our 
history and occurrences of every-day life. He was 
genial and yet earnest. His " Chambered Nautilis " 
touches a high mark in American literature. Holmes 
could be fiery with indignation as his outburst at the 
propose destruction of the gallant war-ship — the 
Constitution — shows. Of Holmes' poems, " The Last 
Leaf " was Lincoln's favorite. 

James Russell Lowell (1819-1891), poet, essayist, 
and diplomat, was perhaps, the most consciously 
" American " of American writers. He was a teacher 
of democracy; he held the American ideal of jus- 
tice and fair play; he believed in the dignity and 
sincerity of American scholarship. He helped to found 
and firmly establish the Atlantic Monthly/. He was 
no calm on-looker at the slavery struggle, nor 
at the obvious injustice of the Mexican War. " The 
Biglow Papers," America's best political satire, written 
in Yankee doggerel, criticises the aims of the war. 
" The Present Crisis " contains the ideals of all free- 
dom-loving men. Lowell's best-known poem, " The Vis- 
ion of Sir Launfal," teaches the brotherhood of men in 
a simple and beautiful way. "The Commemoration 
Ode " contains two great passages, the tribute to Lin- 
coln, and the closing invocation, which begins: 


" O Beautiful ! my Country ! ours once more ! " 
Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864) wrote of the 
America of the seventeenth century. " The House of 
the Seven Gables," " Twice Told Tales," " Mosses from 
an old Manse," "The Scarlet Letter," and "The 
Blithedale Romance" are all on American subjects. 
Though in much of his work, Hawthorne writes of the 
stern and gloomy Puritan, the tone is generally cheer- 
ful, optimistic, and inspiring. His " Great Stone 
Face " has had a very real influence on the lives of many 
American boys and girls. 


Samuel L. Clemens (1855-1910), America's beloved 
" Mark Twain," is more than a humorist. A hater of 
sham and hypocrisy, he sought every opportunity to 
strip it of its robes of pretence. His writings dis- 
tinctly reflect American life, especially the more rugged 
phases of it. His wit, though penetrating, is kindly. 
He uses ridicule without showing bitterness. Mark 
Twain stood for simple, open manhood; he hated pre- 
tended worth even when it was buttressed by wealth and 
power. By many Mark Twain is considered our most 
distinctly American literary product. 

Walt Whitman (1819-1892), primitive, and self- 
assertive, is the uncouth laureate of democracy. Con- 
troversy rages as to whether his was the poetic gift, 
whether he wrote merely for an age or for all time. 
It is doubtful whether he will ever be read by a large 
audience; his work is not read by many; but he did 
express a lasting conception of true democracy — an 
ideal that is like a strong wind blowing off* the grassy 
prairies. He stands for brotherhood, for the simple, 
unafraid dignity of man as he is created by God, en- 


dowed with what God has given him, whether strong 
or weak, gifted or dull. Whitman preached the gospel 
of the essential worth of each man as he is, strong at 
his own task and conscious of his worth, in his own 
place and in his own way doing his share for the great 

All Americans read and know Whitman's ^' Oh 
Captain, My Captain," " Pioneers, Oh Pioneers ! " 
" I hear America Singing," and " The Prayer of Co- 
lumbus." The best expression of his idea of democracy 
is in " Thou Mother of an Equal Brood," which, though 
ovcrboastful, is prophetic and exalted. Of Whitman's 
work it may be said that, like the work of every other 
builder of democracy, what is worthless will drop off, 
what is worth while will pass into the general conception 
of the national ideal. 

Sidney Lanier (1842-1881) was born in the South; 
fought in the Confederate army during the War of 
Secession; spent time in a military prison; became first 
flutist in a Baltimore orchestra ; was a lecturer on 
literary subjects at Johns Hopkins; and, after a vain 
struggle against ill health, died at the age of thirty- 
nine. Lanier, though not well known even to Amer- 
icans, is one of America's purest and sweetest singers, 
a master of music who through toil and pain, gave 
forth poetry rare in its beauty of thought and form. 

Lanier's poetry, like Poe's, was wrung from his soul, 
but unlike Poe's, it was not distorted in thought and 
feeling by passion and despair. He never forgot the 
moral significance of art ; in his mind the right alone 
could be beautiful. In his work is expressed the rare 
combination of rigid devotion to duty and the joyous 
delight in the color and beauty of life and the world 
about him. In Lanier's poetry will be found no 


trace of the rancor of the war in which he fousrht on 
the losing side. His " Centennial Cantata," written in 
celebration of the birth of American Independence, sets 
forth what is perhaps the best statement of the Amer- 
ican ideal of progress toward democracy that has ever 
been put into words. 


This list of American writers is by no means com- 
plete ; there are names not mentioned here which will 
not be forgotten. There are chroniclers and singers 
of the South — George Cable, Thomas Nelson Page, 
and Father Ryan ; singers of the middle West — 
Riley, Hamlin Garland, and Booth Tarkington; of the 
far West — Joachim Miller, Helen Hunt Jackson, Bret 
Harte, and Frank Norris ; and many others, name 
crowding on name, not all shining with equal luster, 
but all representing some vital aspect of American life 
and thought. 


In a study of American writers who helped to build 
the American idea, the influence of American historians 
must not be forgotten. Prescott, Motley, Parkman, 
Bancroft, John Fiskc, McMaster, and the more recent 
historians have done signal service in helping to develop 
and give permanence to the American ideal. Even 
when the subjects were not strictly national, when they 
have been concerned with the chronicles of other peo- 
ples, they have expressed the American point of view 
and thus have helped the forward march of government 
by the people. No one who seeks to find the true 
meaning of America will fail to search the pages of 
the histories written by Americans. 



The possession of these American writers — • our very 
own — gives Americans a place in the world of thought 
and feeling. The lives and works of these men have 
illuminated with a warm radiance the spots where they 
have lived and the places where they have laid the scenes 
of their songs and stories. They have been our real 
teachers of geography and history; without their aid 
we could not see the living map of our country nor 
the animated chronicle of our days. We know places, 
towns, and cities, and rivers, and mountains. North 
and South, East and West, because they have been 
made familiar by the writings of Americans. 

Longfellow has made Cambridge, the Craigie House, 
Harvard College, the village of Grand Pre, and the 
Savannahs of Louisiana, visible and real to us ; Whit- 
tier suggests Fredericksburg, the Rocks of Rivermouth, 
Marblehead, and New England country life in summer 
loveliness as well as when " Snow Bound " ; Irving has 
made the Hudson country, our country, as he has 
brought Westminster Abbey, Abbotsford, and Strat- 
ford-on-Avon to America's doors. This suggestion 
might be continued to Bret Harte and the Western 
camps, to Hamlin Garland and the life of the prairie 
farm, to George Cable and old New Orleans, to Lanier 
and the Southern marshes of Glynn. The knowledge 
of these men and their works gives to our own country 
form and place and extent and reality, makes us aware 
of ourselves, and of our nation's manifest destiny. For 
we have climbed with the " youth who bore 'mid snow 
and ice," the banner of inspiration; we have held with 
Lowell " the Heritage " which any man might wish to 
hold in fee ; we have pursued the *' shapes that flit 
before " with Whittier ; we have hastened downward to 


the plains where duty calls with Lanier; and, though 
we lingered with poor Poe in the " Ghoul-haunted Wood- 
land of Wier," it was for the sake of the magic he 
made and not in doubt and black despair. 

America has up to the present time reflected, and 
at the same time in a measure created, the healthfulness, 
sanity, moral rectitude, and spiritual exaltation of her 
writers, singers, story-tellers, chroniclers, and commen- 
tators. The future of American literature depends 
upon the American people themselves. If America re- 
mains true to her national traditions and ideals, if she 
refuses to let commercialism dominate her life and her 
law, the coming period of leisure and comfort will find 
expression for the spirit of American democracy in 
writings that will be truly national and at the same time 
a part of the literature which embraces all the written 
" things worthy to be remembered " by the people of 
the world. 



The representatives shall pronounce in unison, in the name of 
the French people, the oath to live free or to die. 

Constitution of 1791. 

The great wheel of political revolution began to move in Amer- 
ica. Here its rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. Trans- 
ferred to the other continent, from unfortunate but natural 
causes, it received an irregular and violent impulse; it whirled 
along with fearful celerity; until at last, like the chariot-wheels 
in the races of antiquity, it took fire from the rapidity of its own 
motion, and blazed onward, spreading conflagration and terror 
around. Daniel Webster (Bunker Hill Oration). 

Any attempt to trace the development of popular 
government would be incomplete without a survey of 
the French Revolution, that great eruption of popular 
discontent which shook Europe to its foundation in 
the last years of the eighteenth century. It was a 
movement toward government by the people in marked 
contrast to the slow-footed, ponderous growth toward 
democracy which took place in England and America. 
The French Revolution was not the result of changes 
accumulating one at a time, but of the explosion of pent- 
up forces which, denied natural expression, broke 
loose in uncontrolled fury. 

This terrific upheaval took place between 1789 and 
1800. In that short period, the ancient autocracy of 
France was overthrown; a new government of the 
people was set up; the king and the queen were be- 



headed ; the old order of society was demolished ; the 
calendar was revised andi renamed; and religion was 

While all this was going on, practically the whole of 
Europe had taken up arms against France. After 
several years of war at home and abroad, the revolu- 
tionary government was overthrown ; the leaders of the 
movement were executed ; and, in the reaction that took 
place, France, exhausted and confused, fell under the 
sway of Napoleon Bonaparte. In bare outline that 
was what happened. 

The French Revolution set free forces that make 
for the government of the people, yet its excesses 
checked the steady normal growth of democratic insti- 
tutions and lost to the cause of democracy the support 
of liberal-minded people the world over who were 
shocked at the wild lengths to which the revolution 


While the people of England, century after century, 
were struggling to force from the reluctant hands of her 
despotic kings and of her unreasoning aristocracy the 
right of political freedom, the people of the neighbor- 
ing country of France appear to have been in a state 
of political inactivity. The king was the ruling power 
to such an extent that Louis XIV might well have 
said, " I am the state." Louis XIV ruled from 1643 
to 1715, the seventy-two years coinciding with the Eng- 
lish periods of Charles I, the Commonwealth and Crom- 
well, Charles II, James II, William of Orange and 
Mary, and Queen Anne. During this time, England 
went through a Civil War; set up a republic; saw the 
Restoration of the Stuarts; and finally the establish- 

■« ' 



W S; 

CO r 


ment of a King subject to Parliament. In France, 
during the same period, the rulers governed as they 
pleased. The " Grand Monarche " increased the power 
and prestige of France among European countries and 
dazzled his people bj national glory. The government 
grew to be a highly centralized monarchy with the King 
and his executive council in absolute control. The 
court of France, brilhant and extravagant, needed 
large sums of money to support its state, and the King 
and council fixed the taxes, levied the army, drew up 
" edicts " — as the laws were called — and ruled 
France without reference to the needs or desires of its 

The taxes were unreasonable and unbearable. One 
of them — the gahelle — not only placed a tax on salt, 
but forced people to buy salt whether they used it or 
not ; another — the courvee — was a road tax which 
compelled peasant-farmers to leave their work in the 
fields for many days in order that they might make the 
highways smoother for the carriages of the rich ; and 
a third, an especially hateful tax — the taille — was 
imposed not only on land, but on all manner of indus- 
try. The nobles and clergy were exempt from paying 
any taxes. 

The long and extravagant reign of Louis XIV was 
followed by that of Louis XV (1715-1774). In his 
reign things went from bad to worse with the people. 
Finally when Louis XVI (1784-1792) came to the 
throne, the trouble reached its height. France was al- 
most bankrupt and the young King, finding it neces- 
sary to take extraordinary measures to relieve the sit- 
uation, decided to call an election of the ancient and 
obsolete French legislative assembly, the Estates Gen- 



The Estates General had not been summoned since 
1614, 175 years before. During all that time, the 
French people had had no regular training in carrying 
on government, but there had grown up " a widespread 
feeling of intense protest against the unjust taxes that 
were laid on peasants on the one hand, and against the 
privileges of the upper classes on the other. The 
French people were not so beaten down and degraded 
as it is sometimes supposed; indeed, the very fact that 
they protested so vehemently argues that they were in- 
telligent and courageous and that they were not at star- 
vation's door. At least two-fifths of the soil of France 
belonged to the peasants, and the people of the towns 
— the burghers — though they possessed little land, 
contributed much the larger portion of the nation's cap- 
ital. Upon the burghers — or bourgoisie, as they 
were afterward called — that is upon the bankers, 
lawyers, physicians, capitalists, merchants, contractors, 
and high-grade craftsmen, the leadership of the French 
Revolution fell. 

While the King was preparing for the meeting of the 
Estates General, he invited the people to send writ- 
ten statements containing suggestions for reform. 
Thousands of these " cahiers," which were nothing more 
than lists of grievances, were sent in. These proved a 
powerful educational force, as they set the people to 
thinking independently about ways of reform. Louis 
XVI lived to rue the day that he invited the people to 
give open voice to their wrongs. 


The Estates General represented the three estates of 
the realm, — the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. 


When it assembled trouble at once arose as to whether 
it should sit as one great body in which each individual 
had a voice or whether each estate should vote as a 
unit. The third estate, made up largely of lawyers, 
after a sharp contest with the King and the nobles, ad- 
journed to a neighboring tennis-court and, constituting 
itself as the " National Assembly," took a solemn oath 
not to dissolve until a constitution for France had been 
made. The frightened King tried to disperse the 
Assembly by force of arms, whereat the people of Paris 
on July 14, 1789, rose in wild excitement and battered 
down the fortress known as the Bastile. Since that 
time, July 14 has been celebrated by the French as their 
national holiday. 

From this time on events moved rapidly in a double 
line. The Assembly continued its work with steadiness 
and sanity, placing Lafayette in command of the Na- 
tional Guard ; the people of Paris and the other large 
cities throughout the kingdom organized themselves as 
" communes " and took the control of local government 
into their own hands. Henceforward, the " com- 
munes " of France figure as vital factors in the history 
of the nation. 

A period of confusion and terror now set in, the 
people becoming possessed by an unreasonable and un- 
reasoning fear. This undefined, overpowering terror 
spread throughout the country and relieved itself by 
the wholesale burning of chateaux. A series of crimes 
followed, which terrified the already frightened nobles 
almost to distraction. The maddened people declared 
that they would no longer pay taxes, tithes, or rents. 

The National Assembly felt that it must do some- 
thing to pacify and satisfy the people. Tlie nobles 
who had remained in the Assembly took the lead in a 


display of heroic self-sacrifice, voluntarily laying down 
their ancient privileges: tithes and exemptions from 
taxes were done away with ; the hated "taille" was 
abolished " forever," and all citizens were made eligible 
to office. 


Before this, the Assembly had drawn up a constitu- 
tion known in history as the Constitution of 1791. It 
opened with the famous " Declaration of the Rights of 
Man and Citizen " which was suggested to the Assembly 
by the customary Bill of Rights found in the American 
State Constitutions. Notable among its clauses are 
these : " Men are born equal in rights and should re- 
main so." " Law is the expression of the will of the 
people." *' Each citizen has a right to a share in mak- 
ing it." " It must be the same for all." " Society has 
the right to call for an account from every public 
agent of its administration." It provided that the 
representatives in unison, in the name of the French 
people take "the oath to live free or to die." 

The Constitution of 1791 provided for a limited 
monarchy. The civil rights of the people were secured, 
and equality before the law was established ; hereditary 
titles and special privileges were abolished. Yet in spite 
of the high-sounding phrases of the Declaration of the 
Rights of Man and Citizen, there was no intention of 
universal suffrage, no practical government by the peo- 
ple. By the restriction of suffrage to those who paid 
taxes equal to three days' labor, the government was 
left in the hands of the middle class. By a further 
gradation according to wealth, members of the lowest 
class could vote, those of the second class could hold 
minor political positions, but only the members of the 


third or most wealthy class could be chosen for the 
higher offices. The legislature was to consist of one 
chamber to be renewed every two years. A strictly 
constitutional King whose veto could be over-ridden 
by three legislative affirmations was to be the chief 
executive. By the mistake of making unwise and arbi- 
trary laws concerning the Church, the Revolution lost 
the support of the 46,000 village priests who from 
the first had stood with the liberals. The King signed 
the new Constitution, but he continued to muddle mat- 
ters hopelessly until the radical element became in- 
furiated at certain ill-advised acts of his and the Na- 
tional Guard was forced to quiet the Paris mob. 


After completing its work, the National Assembly 
broke up and gave way to an elected assembly provided 
by the new Constitution. The elections returned an 
almost entirely new assembly composed of ardent young 
lawyers and other inexperienced young men who made 
inflammatory speeches expressing the most advanced 
and revolutionary views. The assembly ordered the 
" emigres " — the nobles who had fled the country — 
to come back to France under penalty of death ; it 
also ordered all the priests who would not accept the 
arrangements of the new Constitution to be deported. 
A confusing time of civil and religious unrest followed 
until the Assembly felt that some move must be made 
to unite the warring factions. They hit upon a for- 
eign war as an effective means of bringing about na- 
tional unity. In the furtherance of this design, they 
found an excuse for a war with Austria, which they 
forced the helpless and bewildered Louis XVI to declare. 

Louis XVI had signed the Constitution of 1791 with 


mental and spoken reservations. Soon after the decla- 
ration of war, the King in an ill-timed spirit of inde- 
pendence vetoed some measures passed by the Assembly 
and dismissed his ministry. The Paris mob rose with 
furious clamor and invaded the Tuileries. They 
rushed into the presence of the royal family, dragged 
out the frightened King, put a red cap on his head, and 
made him drink the health of the new regime. 

This act of disrespect and irreverent violence toward 
the King led the neighboring countries to act. Prus- 
sia joined Austria against the French. The leaders of 
the Paris mob, notably Danton, a prominent Radical, 
now determined to depose the King. In a short time 
the Tuileries was attacked again, the King was sus- 
pended, and a new Constitution was ordered drafted. 


Then it was that the Legislative Assembly gave way 
to the Convention for forming a new Constitution ; and 
the Reign of Terror began. Events moved rapidly. 
Monarchy was abolished September 25, 1792, the Year 
One, according to the new French calendar; a republic 
was established ; three thousand suspected citizens were 
thrown into prison by the Paris mob ; an army was 
raised; the invading enemies were promptly repelled; 
and the Convention sent out proclamations to all the 
people of Europe calling upon them to cast off their 
" tyrants." After months of imprisonment and hu- 
miliation, the King was tried and, as Citizen Louis 
Capet, was condemned as a traitor and executed. 

The English liberals, men like Burke who had ap- 
plauded the first movements of the Revolution, were 
horrified at the extravagant violence of the Convention 


and lost faith in the capability of the people to rule. 
Gouverneur Morris, the American minister to France, 
was thoroughly disgusted with the " French madmen." 
But the Convention went on, declaring war on England, 
Holland, and other countries, until France was at war 
with all her neighbors. The furious career of the Revo- 
lution was for a moment somewhat checked by the com- 
bined efforts of the other European rulers who got their 
heads together and seriously planned the partition of 

At this threat the Convention put the government 
into the hands of a Committee of Public Safety with 
unlimited powers. They proposed to crush the des- 
potism of kings by a despotism of power. A group of 
ultra-revolutionists, called the Mountain, headed by 
Danton, Robespierre, and St. Just, and supported by 
the Commune of Paris took things into their own hands. 
They said the ignorant people, though well intentioned, 
would lead the country back to slavery if they were 
not checked. 

All over the country civil war threatened. The peas- 
ants of La Vendee rose against the Republic, refusing 
to fight for a government that had killed their King 
and exiled their priests. Marseilles and Bordeaux were 
indignant at the treatment of the moderate revolution- 
ists. Besides this, the Allies were attacking the fron- 
tiers of France ; the English took Valenciennes and, 
later on, Dunkirk, while the Prussians were advancing 
in Alsace. 

But the Committee of Public Safety pulled them- 
selves together with marvelous energy, and their depu- 
ties aroused the patriotism of the raw recruits. The 
civil revolt in La Vendee was put down with terrific 


severity, 2,000 Vendean peasants being shot or 
drowned in the Loire. Lyons was bombarded and cap- 
tured and 2,000 of its inhabitants were massacred. 

The Committee of Public Safety carried out these 
atrocities openly and consciously, in an effort to strike 
terror into the enemies at home and abroad. Mean- 
while the guillotine was set up in the Place de la Revo- 
lution, and its terrible work was begun. A Revolu- 
tionary tribunal was instituted in Paris and sympa- 
thizers with emigres or royalty — in fact, all who were 
not ardent supporters of the Revolution — were thrown 
into prison. Marie Antoinette, the deposed Queen, 
was publicly executed amid the jeers of the Paris mob. 
Day after day the tumbrils rattled by and the nobles 
of France paid the penalty of their inheritance. 

The Reign of Terror was not a wanton display of 
blood-letting. It was a deliberate attempt to gain the 
ends desired by "frightfulness," a method that has been 
used from time immemorial when war is being waged. 
It is customary to designate the slaughter of citizens 
by a revolutionary power as the " Red Terror," and 
that by a constituted authority as the '"White Terror." 
Both are coldly calculated to win ends by means of 
force and fear. 

After the first wave of the Reign of Terror had 
spent its force, the dominating spirits of the Committee 
of Public Safety began to fall out with one another, 
and it was not long until one after the other mounted 
the steps of the guillotine. In less than a year the 
Revolutionary leaders followed. In a remarkably short 
time the Revolutionary clubs were closed and the Con- 
vention found itself in danger of being turned out by 
the friends of monarchy. Soon the wealthier classes 
of Paris organized and prepared to resist the destruc- 


tion of their property. The fury of the Revolution 
had begun to abate, the pendulum had swung to its 
limit, and was ready for a return to the other extreme 
of its arc. 


In desperation the Convention turned to the army 
to save it from annihilation, choosing for a leader a 
small, easy-going young Corsican officer who had been 
working in a clerical position in Paris. This young 
man was Napoleon Bonaparte. He turned the cannon 
of the Swiss guard into the streets leading to the 
Tuileries and mowed down the royalists with grape 
shot. The reactionaries were completely routed and 
the way was opened for the daring ambitions of the 
quiet young officer who dreamed of conquest and made 
his dreams come true. 

Popular government in Europe was materially 
checked by the wars waged on that continent from 1795 
to 1815. Napoleon played havoc with the countries of 
Europe, he " tore up the map " of the great part of 
that continent, and made himself and his next of kin 
kings and princes from Italy to t4ie Scandinavian pen- 
insula. But for all Napoleon's brilliant career, for all 
the glory he brought to France and to himself, Waterloo 
came on June 18, 1815, and with it the final downfall 
of the great Emperor of the French. 

Napoleon established and made permanent the ideas 
of the Revolution along orderly, institutional lines, so 
that, while it must be admitted that he was a despot 
in every sense of the word, it must also be conceded that 
it took a Napoleon and a Napoleonic era to fix and 
establish equality in the eyes of the law, and nationality, 
if not liberty, in place of the indifferent herding to- 


gether under one ruler of various peoples with no racial 

But Napoleon's greatest contribution to the world 
was the unsurpassed system of laws called the Code 
Napoleon, which has remained the law, not only of 
France but of practically all Europe, excepting Eng- 
land and Russia. It must always be remembered that 
though Napoleon destroyed political liberty, he pre- 
served equality before the law; and by instituting a 
fairer distribution of taxes removed the disproportion- 
ate burden from the poorer classes and placed it on 
abler shoulders. 


In 1814, the kings and princes whom Napoleon had 
placed upon European thrones, tumbled down amidst 
the general upheaval caused by his Russian campaign 
and his exile to the island of Elba. At once, the gov- 
ernments of the countries ho had conquered reestab- 
lished themselves on their former royal seats. When 
Louis XVIII became King of France, the people seem 
to have made no resistance, largely because they did not 
know how to resist effectively. 

With Napoleon out of the way, the rulers of Europe 
assembled behind locked doors at Vienna to undertake 
the delicate and dangerous task of smoothing out and 
remaking the rumpled map of Europe on an autocratic 
foundation. They based their decisions on the prin- 
ciple of " legitimacy " — that is, on hereditary right 
to throne and territory. They seemed never to have 
heard anything about " the consent of the governed." 
The words " constitution " and " revolution " were 
wiped out as being unfit to be used. The Congress was 
a remarkably selfish and undemocratic assembly. No 


commoners were there ; no representatives of the peo- 
ple ; no mind filled with a wish to bring about a j ust and 
lasting peace for the sake of people who had borne the 
brunt of the wars. On the contrary, the Congress of 
Vienna was made up of Kings and representatives of 
Kings, the one thought in the mind of each being to get 
all he possibly could by fair means or foul. 

The leading spirit of this gathering was the Aus- 
trian Prime Minister, Metternich, whose main idea was 
to get things back where they were before the French 
Revolution. England, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, 
the leading powers, agreed before the meeting as to 
the claims which each should press. After the Con- 
gress opened, the lesser powers were allowed to agree to 
the previously arranged plans. The members of the 
Congress acted like highway robbers over a pile of 
booty ; they simply carved states into slices and dis- 
tributed them about regardless of the nationality or the 
wishes of the inhabitants. 

Germany, which had consisted of over three hun- 
dred states, was consolidated into thirty-eight states ; 
Prussia got a slice on the Rhine as well as Pomerania 
and a large part of Poland ; Russia was awarded Fin- 
land, a nation entirely alien ; Sardinia, the largest state 
of Italy, came away much displeased because Austria 
had secured most of the territory that Sardinia wanted. 
Not being greedy, Switzerland was satisfied with a guar- 
antee of neutrality. Denmark was not let off with a 
whole skin as she was compelled to give Norway to 
Sweden because Sweden had lost Finland. Norway 
objected, and drew up a Constitution, but on being al- 
lowed to have a separate government, she accepted 
Sweden's King as a ruler. Belgium was not on the 
map in 1815, for, regardless of the objection of the in- 


habitants, the territory now occupied by Belgium was 
made part of the Netherlands. By far the larger part 
of Poland went to the Czar of Russia. To keep away 
from contact with France, looked upon as a hot-bed 
of revolution, Metternich consolidated Austria's pos- 
sessions and annexed certain Italian States north of 
the Adriatic, thus making " unredeemed Italy " one of 
the sore spots of Europe. 

England, as pay-master of the Allies, was in a posi- 
tion to get what she asked. She added the island of 
Ceylon and the Cape of Good Hope to her already ex- 
tensive foreign holdings, so that at the close of the Con- 
gress of Vienna, the British Empire led the world in 
colonial possessions. 

The Congress of Vienna did not try to make any plan 
that recognized the claims of nationality; in fact, it 
failed utterly to recognize any such claim. But the 
spirit of nationality continued to grow until to-day, at 
the close of the Great War, there is manifest a wide- 
spread and intense impulse of the peoples naturally re- 
lated to join themselves into independent nations. 

At the conclusion of its conference, which had been 
interrupted by Napoleon's escape from Elba, his 
last attempt to dominate Europe, and his final de- 
feat at Waterloo, the Congress of Vienna summed up 
its deliberations, treaties, and arrangements in the 
" Final Act," which was issued for convenient reference. 
Presently the European monarchs and plenipotentia- 
ries returned to their various countries, climbed upon 
their uneasy thrones, or into their insecure cabinets, 
devoutly hoping that an era of peace had begun. They 
set about ruling as if nothing had happened, as if there 
had been no French Revolution, no Napoleonic Wars, 


no new birth of the spirit of nationality. Their recent 
painful experience had taught them nothing, nor did 
they pay any heed to the Industrial Revolution — al- 
ready well under way — which, as the result of the in- 
troduction of machinery, was beginning to decrease the 
workmen's wages. 

The rulers ignored the fact that the people were de- 
sirous of greater freedom. Each government tried to 
make itself strong by open treaties and secret under- 
standings. They tried to set up a " Balance of 
Power " which would keep any one nation of Europe 
from becoming so powerful that it would be a danger to 
the others. The Congress decided to have regular 
meetings " for the repose and prosperity of nations 
and for the furtherance of the peace of Europe." In 
reality the purpose was to keep Europe under this 


After Napoleon, France went back to the Bourbons 
and the " legitimate " monarchy under Louis XVIII. 
The French Revolution was apparently repudiated, and 
governments seemed to sHp back into their old grooves. 
Not only in France but throughout the continent, the 
excesses of the Revolution had frightened men at the 
possibilities of what might happen when the people 
assumed control of the state, with the result that for a 
number of years thereafter any evident movements look- 
ing toward more democratic ideals were for a time 
promptly crushed. But underneath the surface, popu- 
lar discontent with existing conditions was at work, 
setting up the slower yet surer process of education 
in the place of revolution, while across the sea, in 


America, the constant reminder of what men could do 
by way of self-government gave promise of a better 

As might have been expected the people of France 
did not remain contented. Though Louis XVIII had 
granted a Constitution, they were not satisfied. When 
Charles X, who succeeded Louis XVIII, had no mind 
to rule tamely as a constitutional monarch, but set out 
to rule as he pleased. Revolution at once began to 
make headway. The elections of 1830 brought into 
the Chamber of Deputies a great number opposed to the 
King. Charles sought to overcome this difficult situa- 
tion by suspending liberty of the press, reducing the 
number of voters, and virtually destroying the last 
vestige of popular government. 


Then came the July Revolution of 1830 with Paris as 
the center of activity. Charles X hastily abdicated 
and in short order the crown went to another Bourbon, 
Louis Phillippe, the " Citizen King." He paraded his 
democratic leanings as he went about among the people, 
dressed as a well-to-do merchant might dress and car- 
rying a green umbrella as a sign of his liberal ideas. 
But 1830 did not liberate France, although the tri- 
color of the French Revolution took the place of the 
white and gold fleur-de-lis of the Bourbons. Political 
liberty was not much advanced; the power passed even 
more completely into the hands of the middle class 
bankers, speculators, manufacturers, merchants — 
the " bourgeoisie". Though the sovereignty of the peo- 
ple was proclaimed, it was in reality the will of only 
eighty thousand voters out of a population of thirty 

The same restlessness that brought about the Revo- 


lution of 1830 was stirring in other parts of Europe. 
Belgium, which the Congress of Vienna had added to 
William of Orange's Netherland dominions, was able 
by July, 1831, to throw off the yoke of the Netherlands, 
draw up a constitution based on the sovereignty of the 
people, and elect Leopold of Coburg as King. In Eng- 
land the " First Reform Bill " was passed in 1832, al- 
though Wellington, then Prime Minister, in the face of 
rotten and pocket boroughs and the unrepresented 
thousands in manufacturing towns, had insisted that 
the existing representation in England could not be 
improved upon. In fact by this time, liberal parties 
had developed in almost all the countries of Europe. 
These parties accepted the principles of the Declaration 
of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Because of the 
great changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution, 
many thinkers began to speculate on a possible com- 
plete reorganization of society and. to many. Social- 
ism, which first appeared between 1830 and 1848, pre- 
sented itself as a new method of solving the question of 
justice to all men. 


The next great wave of republicanism in Europe was 
felt in the year of revolutions, 1848. France then saw 
the establishment of the Second Republic. The Citizen 
King had kept himself in favor for eighteen years, his 
ministry ruling the country by organized bribery. In 
the meantime, things were going from bad to worse for 
the working-class. Finally the King abdicated, the gov- 
ernment was overthrown and a National Assembly was 
elected by universal manhood suffrage to draw up a 
Constitution providing for a Republic. As a result of 
closing the National Workshops which had been set up. 


hundreds of thousands of workmen were thrown on the 
streets. Then followed a period of dire confusion and 
misery which was brought to an end by the bullets and 
bayonets of the soldiers. Twenty thousand men per- 
ished, four thousand citizens were transported, thirty 
newspapers were suppressed, and the leaders of the op- 
position were imprisoned. The revolt was put down but 
at a cost of a lasting hatred between working-men and 

In November 1848 a new Constitution was promul- 
gated and the elections took place. Among the candi- 
dates was Louis Napoleon, nephew of Napoleon I. 
His chief asset was his name — but it served to elect 
him. After a few years, by a sudden political move, 
he appealed to the people to confirm him as President 
for ten years. Seven and a half million out of eight 
million voted " yes " to the question he put to them. 
A few years later, following his great uncle's example, 
he made himself Emperor Napoleon III and began to 
rule as a benevolent despot, the government slipping 
back into the old grooves of absolute monarchy. 

The year 1848 saw most remarkable revolutionary 
movements all over Europe. Like the visible shaking of 
an earthquake, the entire continent felt the impulse to- 
ward political freedom. In some countries the move- 
ment took definite shape and showed some real promise 
of change, but in all cases, except in France, practically 
nothing in the way of more democratic government 
came at that time. The influence of the popular dis- 
content, of course, remained. The Hungarians and the 
Bohemians made vigorous efforts to shake off Austrian 
rule, but the Bohemians were crushed by a military 
force and the Hungarians were likewise overpowered so 
that their independence was put off for twenty years 


longer. In Germany, the Frankfort Convention of 
1848 met to draw up a Constitution for a United Ger- 
many. But because of the influence of Austria the 
work of the Convention was repudiated. 

On the whole the Revolutions of 1848 did little more 
than register popular discontent. The day of libera- 
tion was postponed. The rulers of Europe, unable to 
read the meaning of these upheavals, congratulated 
themselves on their victory over the revolutionists. 

Switzerland was the one lone republic that remained 
in Europe. England had a limited monarchy ; but the 
England of 1848 was not the England of 1914. 
Greece had won her independence from Turkey in 1829 
and had established a little kingdom of her own. Bel- 
gium, although a monarchy, had a liberal Constitution, 
one of the provisions of which being compulsory voting- 
The Constitution of Spain had a like provision. All 
the other states of Europe were monarchies of a greater 
or less degree of absolutism. 

Thousands of the people of European countries de- 
siring relief from the heavy burdens of autocracy and 
hearing of the land of freedom across the Atlantic, col- 
lected their few possessions and set out for the United 
States of America, a land that was indeed a land of 
promise to them. Among these were the best and most 
ambitious of all nationalities who, because of poverty 
had little chance for progress in the lands from which 
they came but who saw in this free country — their free 
country — an opportunity and a hope. 


There was a time, not long ago when German theorists, men 
who could not or would not learn the lessons of history, in their 
chagrin longed for a future which would set German life free 
from Prussian militarism. The present has taught them the les- 
son which the past could not teach, for to-day it is by militarism 
that not only the liberty, but the future of the German nation 
itself is upheld and we come to recognize its proper character 
without reserve; then it will be discovered where its weakness 
and where its strength lies. Then it can assert before the world 
that its greatest strength which has stood the test of the past 
and the present, is to be found in that which in the hour of direct 
need and danger saved the life of Germany: German militarism. 
" Imperial Germany ," written in 1916 by 
Former Chancellor von Bvlow. 

The government of the United States can be more 
clearly understood by comparing it with a government 
conducted on principles that are in strong contrast with 
the American idea of rule by the people ; one that works 
on the principle that the heads of governments derive 
their powers not from the consent of the governed but 
from a sovereign power that comes with birth. Such 
a government is generally termed an Autocracy. Rus- 
sia up to March, 1917, was an Autocracy; Germany 
until November, 1918, was in its essence an Autocracy. 
As it was against the German Empire that the United 
States was arrayed in the Great War, some knowledge 
of the development of the government and ideals of that 
country may well become a part of the American citi- 
zen's equipment. 




Although the primitive form of self-government com- 
mon to all European countries appeared at an early 
date in Germany, and while local self-government has 
always flourished there, national self-government never 
developed on German territory. National unity, be- 
gun in the great tribal assemblieSw gradually gave 
way to the domination of a brood of petty princes un- 
til, finally, anything like a national assembly died out. 
By the year 800, Charlemagne had united the territory 
now occupied by Germany, France, the kingdom of 
Austria, and a part of Italy into one great empire. 
This great and good monarch was crowned Emperor of 
the Romans, and thus was made the beginning of what 
later became the Holy Roman Empire. 

After Charlemagne's death, his vast empire was 
divided among his three sons. The eastern part in time 
became Austria; the central part, at first extending 
across the Alps and into Italy, Germany ; and the 
western division, France. Germany soon broke up into 
small kingdoms, principalities, and free towns. At one 
time there were upward of 1800 separate Germanic 
sovereignties each directly or indirectly under an abso- 
lute ruler. 

In the course of years, the larger states of Germany, 
together with Germanic Austria, formed a league of 
nations " neither holy nor Roman nor an empire," 
which was nevertheless called the Holy Roman Empire. 
The only bond of union that held together this shape- 
less confederation was the person of the Emperor, who 
was elected by the leagued sovereigns. The Emperor 
was usually of the royal family of Amstria, the famous 
Hapsburg dynasty, which for one thousand years con- 


tinued the dominant power, until pushed out of the im- 
perial league by the HohenzoUerns, an aggressive Prus- 
sian famil}^, which, beginning in 1192 with the insig- 
nificant Mark Brandenburg, had developed the king- 
dom of Prussia. 


The Holy Roman Empire continued its uncertain 
existence until the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
when Napoleon, claiming not divine right to arbitrate 
the fate of nations, but simply the right of his " tal- 
ents," played havoc with the Hapsburgs and Hohen- 
zoUerns in his astounding upsetting of the European 
chess-board. He tossed about Germany's three hun- 
dred states without regard to the desires of rulers or 
peoples and reduced their number to about forty. 

Napoleon was especially hard on Prussia, which had 
risen to a position of dominance under Frederick, the 
Great Elector (1640-1688). His great-grandson was 
Frederick the Great (1740-1786), a military genius, 
who made his country strong for the sake of making 
his throne strong. Frederick the Great was a most 
thorough cynic, utterly disbelieving in truth and loyalty 
in individuals, and grimly using his subjects of " fools 
and paupers." Under Frederick, Prussia became a 
pure Autocracy, in which the prince with his ministers 
and officers ruled without restraint from any assembly 
of subjects. 

As a result of Napoleon's outrageous treatment of 
Germany, the spirit of nationality was awakened. Once 
aroused it was kept alive by the memory of the march 
and counter-march of the French Emperor's armies 
across German territory. Napoleon battered down 
the Holy Roman Empire when he consolidated all the 


German states — wisely omitting Prussia and Austria 
— into the " Confederation of the Rhine," with him- 
self as Protector. 


After Napoleon's downfall, the Congress of Vienna 
in 1815 set up a Germanic Confederation, a " loose 
league " of the sovereigns of thirty-eight states with a 
Federal Diet which met at Frankfort and was presided 
over by the Austrian representative. " It was not a 
government at all ; it was a polite and ceremonious way 
of doing nothing." It was a government somewhat 
like the one the thirteen colonies attempted to carry 
on under the Articles of Confederation. The states, 
not the people, were represented; there was no federal 
executive, the member states carried out the decrees 
only if they wished to do so. There was no federal 
army. No fundamental change could be made except 
by unanimous consent. This possibility of one vote's 
power to block any proposed concerted action was 
termed the " liberum veto." Moreover the Federal 
Constitution was built on no idea of German unity, 
nor did it provide any method of giving political edu- 
cation to the middle class of Germany. Unlike the peo- 
ple of the United States, the German people had not 
been free to develop a government for themselves ; they 
had been and continued to be hampered by the outworn 
customs and the outlawed claims of rulers who held that 
the King was the source of government. 

But there was a constant growth of liberal senti- 
ment, led by broad-minded men who wished to see a 
united yet free and democratic Germany. The}^ 
wanted the institutions of republican countries — ' a 
legislature controlling the budget, a free press, trial 


by jury, a system of local self-government linked to 
the central government, an independent judiciary, and 
a national guard which would place control in the hands 
of the people. The efforts of these liberals were hin- 
dered by the narrow selfishness of the princes of the 
states, each of whom wished to keep all his kingly pre- 
rogatives and privileges and feared that he would be 
robbed of certain inherited honors and powers, if a 
real German union should be brought about. But in 
spite of the German sovereigns, during the first half 
of the nineteenth century, several well-defined attempts 
at uniting Germany under a liberal form of government 
were made. 


Though little was accomplished by these movements, 
the desire for constitutional liberty was kept alive. 
Germany felt the Revolutions of 1848 to such a degree 
that Frederick William IV, King of Prussia, a mean 
and timid soul, allowed a National Assembly of six hun- 
dred delegates, elected by universal suffrage from all 
the German states, to meet in convention at Frankfort, 
for the purpose of drawing up a Constitution. The 
Convention was made up of men who, though they had 
met for the final organization of the German Gov- 
ernment in the name of the German people, had no 
real authority. The assembly could lay plans, but the 
government alone could pass upon them. After some 
difficulty as to membership in the proposed union, 
it was finally decided to include only Prussia and the 
states that had belonged to the German Confederation 
of the Rhine of 1815. This omission of Austria re- 
lieved Prussia of the only rival that she feared. 

When the Constitution was finally completed, the im- 


perial diadem was offered to Frederick William IV. 
But by this time, Frederick had secured the backing of 
the ruler of Austria, who had been busy gaining the 
support of the princes of southern Germany. Em- 
boldened by this sympathy, he refused the crown, in- 
dignantly denying the right of the Frankfort assembly 
— a mere gathering of representatives of the people — 
to bestow any such honor. He would take the crown 
from no such unauthorized body, saying that in his 
opinion, the princes of Germany alone had the right 
to offer to any one the headship of the empire. 

After an unsuccessful attempt at founding a repre- 
sentative government, the National Assembly went 
home discouraged and confounded. Their failure can- 
not be laid to their lack of a practical plan. The Con- 
stitution they prepared was the work of high-minded 
and able men, who believed the German people capable 
of working out a government on the principle of fair- 
dealing to all men. Its failure, may be laid rather to 
the lack of an army and executive machinery of gov- 
ernment with which to carry forward the decision of 
the Convention. Many of the men of the Frankfort 
Assembly lost heart, and despairing of success in their 
native land, left Germany for other lands, great num- 
bers of them coming to the United States. 

A short time after the Frankfort Assembly broke up, 
Frederick W^illiam IV, frightened by the popular un- 
rest, submitted a Constitution of his own for the gov- 
ernment of Prussia, although he had once indignantly 
said that he would never allow a sheet of paper to make 
its paragraphs the rulers. He still held that the sov- 
ereign power resided in the King, but he admitted that 
the King might, if he wished, allow the people to share 
in the government. This Constitution of 1849, with a 


few unimportant changes, remained the Constitution of 
Prussia up to 1918. Under it a Prussian parliament 
called the Landtag was established. 


Though Austria had dominated Germany, she was 
not to continue to exercise supremacy ; for soon, PruS' 
sla, under the Chancellorship of Bismarck, the most 
skilful and powerful statesmen of modern times, bc' 
gan to assume a dominating position. At the time of 
the advent of Bismarck In the diplomatic circles of 
Europe, Germany was composed of thirty-eight states, 
each with an independent sovereign. Among these 
states an intricate system of duties for exports and 
imports existed, to the economic detriment of all. In 
1834, a " Zollverein," or tariff-union, had been formed, 
the effect of which on profits had been marvelous. This 
commercial affiliation was the forerunner of political 
union and was a long step toward a real unification of 
the Germans. 

In 1861, William I became King of Prussia and set 
out as a practical ruler. He so organized the army 
that there were soon, either in active service or in the 
reserves, four hundred thousand men ready at the call 
to arms. William I lengthened the compulsory term 
for active service to four years and the reserve term 
to three years, so that seven of the best years of all 
German men were devoted to military training. This 
system was so effective in making a great army that it 
became the basis of military service in nearly all Eu- 
ropean countries. 


William I had hardly come to the throne when 
he got Into a deadlock with the Landtag over army 


appropriations, which needed to be greatly increased 
to enable him to carry out his plans. In this strait 
the King appointed Bismarck Chancellor. Bismarck 
was a Junker, that is, a landed gentleman of East 
Prussia ; he was an intolerant aristocrat, but he was 
bent on making a united Germany, with Prussia as the 
controlling state. With this end in view, the new Chan- 
cellor began to increase the power and prestige of 
Prussia. As the first necessary step, he humiliated 
Austria in a war which he provoked in 1866. This 
done, he cut off all political connection with that coun- 
try. By a war of conquest which he made to seem a 
war of defense, he annexed not only Danish Schleswig- 
Holstein, but Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and the 
free city of Frankfort. The people of these territories 
were thenceforward to be Prussians in language, cus- 
toms, and law, although none of the annexed communi- 
ties had been consulted as to their wishes. 

In 1867, the time being ripe for such a move, William 
I and the rulers of the North German States formed the 
North German Federation under the guiding hand of 
Bismarck. After the sovereigns had agreed upon a 
constitution, it was submitted to a provisional Reichs- 
tag elected by the people of all the states. This as- 
sembly did little but ratify the proposed scheme of 
government; when the majority disagreed with Bis- 
marck, the majority yielded. For instance, the Reichs- 
tag voted for a responsible ministry and payment of 
members, but, as Bismarck was opposed to both ideas, 
neither principle was put into the Constitution. 

The North German Federation was so planned that 
when the southern states — Bavaria, Wurtemberg, 
Baden, and South Hesse — knocked at the door for ad- 
mission into the German union at the close of the 


Franco-Prussian War of 1871, they were accommo- 
dated without any change in the original document. 
The door opened easily and the North German Feder- 
ation became the German Empire, with Bismarck's 
Constitution as the fundamental law and the King of 
Prussia as the Kaiser of Germany in perpetuity. 

The contrast between the origin of the German 
Constitution and the origin of the Constitution of the 
United States of America is striking. The American 
document was drawn up by men tried in war and in 
peace and skilled in the affairs of practical government ; 
it was in the main based on a series of compromises 
made to satisfy the needs and wishes of the people of 
divergent occupations and modes of living. It was 
wrought out by the best minds of America and before 
being put into operation, it was sent back to the states 
for ratification. During the period of ratification, it 
underwent the keen and pitiless criticism both of men 
who had worked to frame it and of men who sought to 
destroy it. After much public discussion it was ac- 
cepted and set up as the fundamental law of the United 
States of America. All this happened eighty years be- 
fore the formation of the North German Confederation. 


The government of Germany up to the last months of 
1918 was a federation like that of the United States, 
consisting of twenty-five states and one imperial terri- 
tory, Alsace-Lorraine. There were four kingdoms, 
eighteen duchies, and three republics — the city states 
of Bremen, Hamburg, and Liibeck. Whoever was 
King of Prussia was the Kaiser of Germany. The laws 
of the realm were made by two bodies, a sort of King's 
council, composed of delegates appointed by the princes 


of the various states and called the " Bundesrat,'* and 
an assembly elected by the people, called the " Reichs- 
tag." All taxes were voted by the Reichstag. The 
chief minister of the realm, the " Chancellor," was ap- 
pointed by the Kaiser and presided over the Bundes- 

At a casual glance this may seem a democratic ar- 
rangement, resembling in many ways the scheme of 
government which holds in the United States of Amer- 
ica. In reality it was far from democratic in its in- 
tent or in its working out. The Bundesrat, as inter- 
preted by Bismarck and apparently accepted by the 
Germans, was the seat of imperial sovereignty. In 
other words the Government of Germany derived its 
" just " powers from a council made up of representa- 
tives of the princes of the sovereign states which com- 
posed Germany. Its members were instructed dele- 
gates appointed for life by the sovereign princes of 
the various states of Germany to represent their inter- 
ests in the empire. 

Unlike the usage of the Senate of the United States, 
the German states did not have equal votes. There were 
fifty-eight members. Of these Prussia had seventeen; 
no other state had more than six, while seventeen had 
only one vote. The delegates for each state voted as 
a solid block and as directed by the king of that state. 
Fourteen votes against any measure vetoed it. Thus it 
is easy to see that the controlling power of the 
Bundesrat was lodged in the King of Prussia. All laws 
for the Empire were initiated in the Bundesrat be- 
cause, as the Reichstag of itself was powerless to make 
laws over the veto of the larger body, it was useless for 
the popular assembly to attempt to force measures. 
The Chancellor, the vital center of the imperial admin- 


istration, was responsible to the Emperor who need 
give an account of his acts to nobody. Thus the Chan- 
cellor was " the responsible proxy of an irresponsible 
emperor." All the debates of the Bundesrat being 
secret, no part of its proceedings ever went into the 
newspapers, and consequently little was heard of it. 
It did its work quietly and effectively. 

While nominally the Emperor had no veto on the 
proceedings of the Bundesrat, he possessed the sub- 
stance of that power for he controlled at least twenty 
votes, whereas fourteen could hold back any measure. 
The Germans were in the habit of calling this method 
of conducting the business of the nation a " govern- 
ment by experts." 

The Reichstag consisted of three hundred ninety- 
seven five-year members, elected by men over twenty-five 
years of age. This body voted the appropriations pro- 
posed by the Bundesrat, but, failing to approve the 
proposed budget, the taxes of the year previous were 
continued until new ones were granted. The imperial 
treasury therefore was never in danger of becoming 
empty. The Reichstag had no control over the Chan- 
cellor ; its disapproval, expressed by a vote of " lack of 
confidence," could not shake him from his seat. It was 
rendered still less useful by the distribution of repre- 
sentation which had not been changed since 1870. 
Such rapidly increasing cities as Berlin kept their 1870 
representation, as did East Prussia where the popula- 
tion was for a long time unchanged. 
' The Emperor appointed the Chancellor from among 
the Prussian delegates to the Bundesrat ; the Chancellor 
in turn appointed all the heads of bureaus and minis- 
ters. The Emperor could at his pleasure dissolve the 
Reichstag; he was commander-in-chief of the army and 


navy; he could declare a war of defense. Under the 
Bismarckian policy, it may be added that no Ger- 
man war ever was " offensive." No machinery existed 
whereby the Emperor of Germany could be impeached, 
as he owed his 'position to God alone. At his corona- 
tion William I said, as he placed the crown upon his 
own head, " The crown comes only from God, and I 
have received it from his hands." 

The Emperor had almost absolute control over for- 
eign relations ; he could make or break foreign treaties 
without the slightest knowledge of the Reichstag. In 
short, by masterly state-craft, Bismarck succeeded in 
establishing a seemingly constitutional government 
which in reality gave absolute power to the man who 
was at one and the same time the King of Prussia and 
Emperor of Germany. Every suggestion of real par- 
liamentary control was avoided ; the Reichstag had no 
hold on the government ; it had only the negative power 
of refusing to pass laws. 


The real source of the Emperor's great power lay in 
his control of Prussia, the very heart of the German 
Empire. Prussia contained two-thirds of the terri- 
tory and of the population of Germany. The Land- 
tag of Prussia consisted of two chambers — the house 
of Lords (Herrenhaus) and the house of Representa- 
tives (Abgeordnetenhaus). The " governments," that 
is, the King, over whom the legislature had no control, 
initiated all the proposed laws. The composition of 
the Herrenhaus was left to royal ordinances. If the 
Herrenhaus should oppose the measures of the King, 
he could create new lords to carry his plans through. 
The Herrenhaus had a veto power over the legisla- 


tion approved by the " popular " house ; the King an 
absolute veto on any measure passed by the entire 

The people of Prussia were granted universal man- 
hood suffrage with peculiar conditions attached to the 
privilege. Every man over twenty-five had the right 
to vote for the members of the lower house. But all 
taxable property, all the material wealth of the Prus- 
sians — land, money, and personal possessions — was 
put into one great heap and divided into three even 
parts. The combined owners of each part paid an 
equal amount of taxes and were given an equal number 
of delegates in the house of representatives. Thus the 
great land owners, four per cent, of the whole Prussian 
population, paid one-third of the taxes and elected 
one-third of the legislators ; the wealthy middle class, 
fourteen per cent, of the population, paid one-third of 
the taxes and elected the second third ; and finally, the 
working classes, eighty-two per cent, of the people, paid 
the remaining third of the taxes and elected the remain- 
ing one-third of the legislators. This was the Prus- 
sian system of electing a " popular " body. To this 
was added one last straw for breaking down the rule 
of the people — the method of voting was by the liv- 
ing voice, because, stated the law, " nothing is so in- 
dispensable to a free people as the courage to express 
one's conviction publicly." 

How such an absolute government as that of the Ger- 
man Empire grew up and continued to exist in the 
midst of the growing democracy of Western Europe 
is a question that might well be asked. A direct and 
simple answer is not easily given because the question 
involves a very complex, many-angled series of situa- 
tions. In Germany, as in every other country, the ac- 


tual process of government is hard to understand. It 
refuses to be put into a set of rules. Autocratic Ger- 
many had its decidedly democratic features ; demo- 
cratic France is by no means a true democracy ; the 
United States of America has its autocratic economic 
system. Though there doubtless were many causes that „ 

contributed to establishing the autocratic militaristic 1 

system of Germany, there is no doubt that Bismarck 
and the Bismarckian policy had more influence than all 
other causes put together. 

After the days of the French Revolution, after the 
scourge of Napoleon, the spirit of nationality coupled 
with the spirit of growing democracy animated the Ger- 
man people, who longed for a united Germany with 
liberal institutions. But when the Congress of Vienna 
made the settlement of Germany under the Federal Con- 
stitution, the spirit of liberty was thwarted. Yet in 
spite of this check, the movement toward constitutional 
government went steadily on. By 1848 the universities 
of Germany had united the German people in thought 
and ideals, and South Germany was ready for changes 
directed by popular will. But militaristic Prussia 
barred the way to unity on a liberal basis, though even 
Prussia might have been converted to the movement 
that was sweeping western Europe had not Bismarck 
come into power at the time that he did. Just when 
William I of Prussia was ready to yield to the pressure 
of the Landtag, Bismarck, as Chancellor, took the reins 
of government. 


The Iron Chancellor came to his affice with a defi- 
nite end in view. He, as well as the German progres- 
sives, wished to see a strong united Germany, but he 


scorned the popular will and refused to be led by " un- 
instructed majorities." For a number of years he 
played a desperate game with the public opinion of 
Prussia and all Germany against him. But he stuck 
to the task he had set himself. His plan was to unite 
Germany with Prussia, not Austria, as the controlling 
state. The Prussian army was to be the mighty in- 
strument by which the union was to be effected. B«5- 
marck never lost sight of this clearly defined purpose. 
By means of successive and successful wars waged in 
alleged defense of the Fatherland, he brought all the 
states of Germany under one banner with the King 
of Prussia as the " War Lord " and Kaiser of the Ger- 
man Empire. Bismarck himself said that the liberals 
paved the way for German unity, but that the Prus- 
sian army by force of arms made German unity a real- 
ity. It was the pride and exultation of victory that 
brought the great mass of the German people to ac- 
cept Bismarck's leadership. 

From the time of the establishment of the German 
Empire, the German Government became fixed on the 
foundations laid by Bismarck as an autocratic gov- 
ernment supported by a great army. Bismarck made 
Germany a united nation on his own terms and by 
methods that he conceived to be justifiable. He de- 
clared his belief that the unity of Germany was not to 
be brought about by parliamentary debates but by 
" blood and iron." He believed that the will power of 
the nation would not be strengthened by strife between 
ruler and people but " by the clash of German pride, 
honor, and ambition against the foreign power." 
When Bismarck found it possible, he worked with a 
majority; when the majority went against the govern- 
ment, he over-rode it or worked to bring about a new 


majority which would support his policy. And Bis- 
marck's policy succeeded. Not only was it a fact that 
the newly nationalized Germany was prospering in every 
way — materially, intellectually, and scientifically — 
but it soon came to pass that under Bismarck's suc- 
cessors the German Empire was a powerful and ag- 
gressive nation, carrying on definite plans of expansion 
in all parts of the world. 


Out of national pride, fostered by undoubted suc- 
cesses at home and abroad in every branch of endeavor, 
out of the strength and power exercised by the Ger- 
man Government there grew up a new ideal of the state. 
Bismarck's principles of diplomacy seemed to prove the 
ideal true. In this view, the state was thought to be 
an mstitution apart from the people, who existed only 
to make the state strong. The state came first, as 
individuals received their rights from the state. 

This theory seems to have been accepted by the aris- 
tocratic and militaristic classes of society. It was held 
and taught by German leaders of thought. For forty 
years the brilliant von Treitschke, professor of history 
in the University of Berlin, expounded this view of the 
state to the young men who crowded to his lecture room, 
until it became familiar and seemed plausible. Accord- 
ing to von Treitschke, the state, being above the people, 
is bound by no moral law ; its first duty is to be power- 
ful. A state has no right to exist unless it can main- 
tain itself against foreign aggression. Self-determina- 
tion and self-direction could never be permanently ac- 
corded to weak and insignificant nations, no matter how 
strong might be their claims to nationhood. Von 
Treitschke believed that the lives of nations were guided 


by the principle that might makes right, that in the 
struggle for existence the weakest must of necessity 
go to the wall. Bismarck himself had held that good- 
will, which he conceded to be everything in matters of 
morality, was of little or no importance in the life of 
a nation; that ability was the only thing that counted. 

As in this view the first duty of the state is to be 
powerful, it followed that every citizen must share in 
making the state irresistible in war. Universal military 
service was necessary. To be good soldiers, citizens 
must be physically strong, they must be protected in life 
and limb. Hence followed much legislation to insure 
safety of person and compensation for accidents. 
Moreover a state founded on such principles must re- 
move its citizens from the fear of an unprovided old 
age ; hence there were instituted old-age pensions and 
state insurance. 

To make the Germans the very best feeders of the 
state, an effective system of government control of edu- 
cation, of politics, and of agricultural development was 
put into operation. Every human being in the entire 
country was card-catalogued ; every industry, every oc- 
cupation, every skill was listed, rated, and reduced to 
a matter of figures ; a minute summary of the dimen- 
sions of every house was in the hands of the govern- 
ment. The Germans lived and breathed to order and 
by orders, thus exemplifying the fact that routine is 
the only safeguard of the people under a perfect autoc- 
racy. In a word, efficiency became the German gov- 
ernmental and household god. 

In searching for the reasons explaining why Germany 
kept her undemocratic form of government while the 
rest of Europe was moving toward democracy, three 
facts merit consideration. In the first place, G'^rmany 


had become a united nation under the lead of mihtaris- 
tic, autocratic Prussia, and because the Prussian army 
had made Germany a nation, the army became the visi- 
ble expression of the German national spirit. As may 
readily be seen, the army was anything but helpful to 
the growth of democracy. In every German home a 
living unit of the German army was seated at the hearth- 
stone. Fathers and sons were German soldiers, either 
active or in the reserve, and they were imbued with the 
necessity of a great army of " defense." 

Moreover, the new German nation was prosperous al- 
most beyond belief. The country was rapidly growing 
rich. The government helped in every possible way, 
even giving financial aid to industries that were in 
need of funds. German schools, compulsory and regu- 
lated by government, were considered the best in the 
world. Germany took the lead in science, a degree 
from a German University being a coveted prize. 


Finally, the demands of democracy were partially 
satisfied by the exercise of local self-government. In 
municipalities and towns, the people had the control- 
ling voice. German towns were models for imitation 
by the whole world. From the cities of the United 
States, of England, of South America, of Australia, 
came junketing aldermen to study German municipal 
methods that they might imitate them in their home 

As a matter of fact, the. German Government was not 
so undemocratic as one would have expected to find it 
under the bureaucratic system of the Empire. The 
people of Germany were listened to by the government 
and public opinion had great influence in determining 


general policies. A member of the Reichstag could 
openly speak his mind in the sanctuary of that assem- 
bly. As a consequence, the Reichstag has been the 
forum of many varying opinions and the utterances of 
its members have influenced the poHtical parties of 
Germany deeply. Even Bismarck had to yield when he 
found that he could not stamp out the Catholics, and to 
get the best of the Socialists he had to rob them of their 
thunder by instituting the very reforms they advocated. 
This brief discussion of the German Government and 
ideal should help Americans to understand more clearly 
the democratic ideal on which the government of the 
United States is founded. Our country fought to 
overthrow autocracy ; to strike a death blow at mil- 
itarism in the hands of an absolute ruler. These pur- 
poses were acclaimed again and again by the Allies 
as well as by the United States. If the world has been 
made safe for democracy^ the price was not too great. 
One thing is sure, the world will never stay safe for 
democracy unless the people themselves are deter- 
mined that it shall be so. 



Here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead 
nor to tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it. 

Thomas Jefferson. 
Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has 
nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition 
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; 
error ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to con- 
tradict them. 

Thomas Jefferson (Statute of Religious Freedom). 

If it is necessary to study the former autocratic gov- 
ernment of Germany in order to get a clear notion of 
the principles underlying the government of the United 
States, it is vastly more important, for the same rea- 
son, to examine the revolutionary theories of govern- 
ment and economic relations which advocate the entire 
reconstruction of the social and political order as a 
means of correcting the injustices and inconsistencies 
that exist in society. For, while the autocracy of Ger- 
many is in all probability permanently overthrown, the 
standards of revolution are attracting many adherents 
and are influencing the thought of the world. 

All the revolutionary theories that are agitating the 
world to-day look to the ages-old idea of communism 
as the cure for existing evils. Communism is that sys- 
tem of economics which advocates the abolition of pri- 
vate property and the introduction of common owner- 
ship of goods, at least as far as capital or the means of 



production is concerned. This basic theory is the 
source of an innumerable variety of plans, some of them 
mild, some extremely drastic, for the regeneration of so- 
ciety and government so that exact justice will be real- 
ized by everybody. 

From the most ancient times there have been set up, 
at intervals, certain partially communistic systems and 
institutions. For instance in Jerusalem, near the be- 
ginning of the Christian era, a voluntary Christian 
communism, based on true charity and equality, was 
undertaken. But none of these attempts long suc- 
ceeded, because they proved unworkable, and for the 
purposes of the American of to-day their consideration 
may be disregarded. It is far more important now to 
center attention on the modern revolutionary theories 
that have their roots in the great development of in- 
dustry which began in the latter part of the eighteenth 
century. At that time a movement started which re- 
sulted in the division of society into the ranks of capital 
and labor, or, as the social-revolutionary puts it, the 
" proletariat," the homeless, floating population of 
our great cities ; and the " bourgeoisie," the capitalists 
who have worked up from what was formerly the middle 
class to a controlling position in the economic world. 

Among the most active present-day revolutionary 
movements are Socialism and Anarchism. Other mani- 
festations variously called Bolshevism, Syndicalism, 
and I. W. Wism are the offspring of the one or the other 
or of both of these parent theories. The task of gain- 
ing an understanding of the confused and confusing 
masses of written material that have to do with the the- 
ory and practice of these revolutionary principles is not 
an easy one. One may read books by socialists and an- 
archists, by anti-revolutionists and middle-of-the-road 


writers, and yet remain in the outer dark. In the 
words of an ardent American revolutionist, there " is 
the most difficult confusion of bedfellows to disentangle 
limb from limb, smooth out and lay on their pillows so 
that one can see them." But as revolutionists are all 
about us, it becomes an imperative duty to at- 
tempt to find out something of the beliefs, aims, and pro- 
grams of the various groups that are in general terms 
called by others and by themselves " revolutionary." 


Socialism first appeared about one hundred years 
ago when the wretched condition of the working classes, 
caused by the invention of machinery and consequent 
introduction of the factory system, called for measures 
of relief. The first socialists are not considered really 
such by their modern offspring, who characterize the 
early ideals and the attempts at realizing them in actual 
practice as unscientific and " Utopian," — In fact, as 
thoroughly unpractical and silly. They look upon 
such persons as Robert Owens, the rich English manu- 
facturer, who, in order to work out his communistic 
theories, founded an unsuccessful cooperative colony at 
New Harmony, Indiana, as benevolent but hopelessly 

Modern or " scientific " Socialism was founded by 
Karl Marx (1818-1883) who, though a native of Ger- 
many, spent most of his life in England, where he wrote 
" Das Capital " (Capital), the bible of socialism. The 
cardinal doctrines of modern socialism appear in the 
" Communistic Manifesto " which Marx and his friend 
Engles published in 1848, the year of European revolu- 
tions. This " Communistic Manifesto," one of the 
great documents of the revolutionists, was destined to 


become the creed of the greatest international political 
movement the world had ever seen. 

Marx based his theory of Socialism on two main " dis- 
coveries — " the " materialistic conception of history " 
and the secret of the growth of capital by means of 
" surplus-value." Through these two " discoveries," 
according to the disciples of Marx, socialism became 
a " science." 

" The materialistic conception of history " is some- 
times called '' economic determinism." These two 
mouth-filling phras<?s, as well as some others, must be 
chewed and digested if one is to understand what the 
socialists in our midst are talking and writing about. 
By the " materialistic conception of history " Marx 
meant that the entire history of mankind with its politi- 
cal, religious, and moral phenomena is but a grand 
process of evolution, wherein nothing is stable except 
the constant law of perpetual change. All progress, 
he argued, has come by means of class wars waged for 
the purpose of gaining clothing to wear, a place to 
dwell, and, above all, food to eat. That is, Marx held 
that no really important changes were effected by such 
things as the coming of Christ, or the spread of Moham.- 
medanism, the Crusades, the Renaissance, the Reforma- 
tion, the discovery of America, the invention of print- 
ing, or by the lives of any of the great leaders in art, 
science, invention, or religion. 

In other words every change in the history of the 
world was caused by the struggle for existence. Of 
course such a theory as this throws overboard all moral 
laws and all ties and duties that civilized men have con- 
sidered as just and binding. According to this system 
of philosophy, the human race must continue in the 
direction indicated by Marx, because the onward move- 


ment of evolution cannot be controlled. The world, 
said Marx, has passed through successive class strug- 
gles; the first, between master and slave; the second be- 
tween serf and lord or king; and the third, which is 
going on to-day, between the capitalist and the laborer. 

The other " discovery " that helped to make social- 
ism a " science," and which Marx called " surplus 
value," may be explained thus then put into simple 
words : A man who works in a factory at four dollars a 
day makes in four hours a chair out of materials that 
cost two dollars. The chair is sold for eight or twelve 
dollars. The employer gets the difference between the 
price he puts on the chair and the money paid for 
materials and labor and thus speedily grows rich. The 
more men he employs, the richer he gets on the " surplus 
value " of the men's time. Marx held that this " sur- 
plus value " belonged to the man who by his labor made 
the increase in capital. This rather crude illustration 
will help to show what is meant by the term, " surplus 
value," that one is bound to hear from the lips and see 
in the writings of socialists. 

Marx held that all wealth comes from labor, and as 
labor produces the capital necessary to establish fac- 
tories, railroads, and other sources of wealth, he would 
have labor own all capital employed in producing 
wealth. Marx's scheme called for a complete reorgani- 
zation of the world. The family was attacked as the 
basis of economic society ; marriage was held up as an 
institution of oppression to women, who should be ruled 
in their marriage relation by love alone; the relation be- 
tween husband and wife was to cease as soon as love 
between them had departed; children were to become 
wards of the state; mutual obligations of parents and 
children were to be wiped out ; the Church was held up 


as the bulwark of oppression, which must be swept 
awaj with other out-worn institutions of society. 
These changes were to be brought about by force. 

The Manifesto ends with these words of unmistak- 
able meaning: "The Communists disdain to conceal 
their views and aims, they openly declare that their ends 
can be obtained only by the forcible overthrow of all 
existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes trem- 
ble at the Communistic revolution. The proletarians 
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a 
world to win. Working men of all countries, unite ! " 

Marx and his followers held up a picture of the time 
to come when the idle would be set to labor, when no 
one would become rich at the cost of his neighbor, and 
when every person would have an opportunity to de- 
velop the best that was in him. There would be no 
more poverty, no more disease, no more crime — all peo- 
ple would live together in harmony and brotherly love. 
The individual counted for little, the mass of people for 
everything. In his social scheme, Marx opposed state- 
ownership of the great instruments of production under 
the existing state ; nothing short of complete abolition 
of the state as a national unit could bring about the 
reorganization of the social fabric of the world that he 
aimed at. 

By Marx, as by later socialists, the idea of nation- 
alism and patriotism was cried down as a merely false 
sentiment invented by capitalists to befool the common 
man into doing capital's bidding and keep the workers 
of the world from internationalism, the goal toward 
which the world was inevitably moving. Marx there- 
fore sought to realize the ideas of " scientific " social- 
ism by organizing the people in all the countries of the 
world into a great Socialistic Society, the " In- 


ternational " as it came to be called. But though 
there were a few meetings of the International, it has 
never had any great effect on the movement of social- 
ism, which has developed most widely within national 
boundaries. The doctrines of Marx, which are still 
held in the main by the great body of socialists, under- 
lie the platform of all socialistic political parties 
throughout the world, though they have not all been 
directed along the same lines. 

The movement that most closely followed Marx's doc- 
trine was developed in Germany as the Social Demo- 
crat party. It kept its original Marxian features, 
probably because of the limitations placed upon all 
parties in Germany by the undemocratic government 
of that country. Not being allowed to initiate re- 
forms, it remained largely a theoretic but nevertheless 
forceful protest against social and economic injustices. 
In the other European countries. Socialism assumed a 
modified and more practical form. 

Socialism, as generally accepted to-day, is an ideal 
economic system in which industry is to be carried on 
under social direction and for the benefit of society as 
a whole. It is contrasted with the competitive regime 
of existing society. Its main feature is " collecti- 
vism," a belief in bargaining by a group of workers in- 
stead of by individuals. Socialism implies a changed 
attitude toward property holding. Our economic life 
at the present time is dominated by private property, 
under the control of which the world's work is carried 
on. Socialists hold that the whole process must be re- 
versed so that by the substitution of collective owner- 
ship of the great material instruments of production, 
the world's work may ultimately be carried on by the 
agents of the government. 



Anarchism, another revolutionary movement, which 
had for its sponsor Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809— 
1865), a French contemporary of Karl Marx, began 
about the same time as did Socialism. Proudhon held 
that " Property is theft." He summed up his politi- 
cal creed in the phrases, " No more parties, no more 
authority, absolute liberty of man and citizen." 

Proudhon believed in using peaceful measures, but 
not so Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian leader of An- 
archism (1814-1876). In 1869 he founded the Social 
Democratic Alliance, a society of working men which 
affiliated with Marx's International. It was not long 
until Marx and Bakunin separated because of a dif- 
ference as to method of bringing about a revolution. 
Marx would secure economic reforms through political 
action, and peacefully, while Bakunin would improve the 
lot of working men by general strikes — " direct ac- 
tion" — without reference to government and Avith the 
help of terrorism. 

The spirit of Bakunin's kind of Anarchism is well in- 
dicated in the words of the Revolutionary Catechism 
written by a friend of the Russian leader. '' The Rev- 
olutionary Anarchist will use every measure and every 
effort to increase and intensify the evils and sorrows, 
which must at last exhaust the patience of the people 
and excite the insurrection en masse. The only revo- 
lution that can do any good to the people is that 
which utterly annihilates every idea of the state and 
overthrows all traditions, orders, and classes. With 
this end in view, the Revolutionary anarchist has no 
intention of imposing upon the people any organization 
coming from above. The future organization will with- 
out doubt proceed from the movement and life of the 


people; but that is the business of future generations. 
Our task is destruction, terrible, total, inexorable, and 

Anarchism is based on a revolutionary theory that 
leads in an almost exactly opposite direction to Social- 
ism. Socialism would employ a democratic government. 
Anarchism would employ no government at all. All 
public property would be transferred to independent 
groups of working men. In these groups, united to 
each other by mere federation, each individual would 
receive the entire product of his work. All governmen- 
tal functions would cease. Absolute liberty and equal- 
ity must be granted to individuals. Anarchists believe 
that order will come of itself, once class distinction and 
the domination of the rich are abolished. Every one 
will be jealously careful of the right of each individual 
to do as he pleases, as long as he does not inflict un- 
warranted injury on others. The only social bond 
will be the " free contract " ; that is, each individual 
may of his own free will enter into contract with other 
individuals as he chooses and for as long or as short a 
term as he may desire. The state will have no power 
whatever to compel any man to keep his " free con- 

To bring about this ideal state, the anarchists would 
not employ political measures as socialists for the 
most part are content to do. Therefore anarchists 
scorn political parties and parliamentary discussions. 
They appeal principally to violence and force, using 
explosives and other instruments of destruction as the 
quickest means of getting rid of the existing social or- 
der. As to what will happen once they get rid of the 
present state of things, anarchists seem to be not very 
clear, as the " catechism " suggests. 


The two aspects of Anarchism that are most influen- 
tial to-day are Syndicalism and the movement that goes 
under the name, " The Industrial Workers of the 
World," or as it is commonly termed, the " I. W. W." 


Syndicalism is a form of revolutionary labor union- 
ism which gets its name from the general term, " syndi- 
cat,^^ as the labor union is called in France, where the 
movement has made greatest headway. Syndicalism 
stands opposed, on the one hand to the old-line trades- 
unionism and on the other to political Socialism. It 
aims at direct seizure of all industries by organized 
bodies of workers. It does not work for " collecti- 
vism " or the ownership and operation of industries by 
the state, but, as far as can be learned, it proposes to 
give control of the various industries to the people who 
work in the industry. Thus the railway employees 
would own and run the railways ; the miners, the mines ; 
the shoemakers' union, the shoe factories ; and so on. 
Syndicalism has no faith in reforms through the ballot 
nor in armed revolution. It seeks first to tire out the 
capitalist and kill his interest in property through cur- 
tailment of profit by means of strikes, boycotts, and 
destruction of machinery, and finally to overrun the 
tottering capitalistic system through " general strikes." 


The Industrial Workers of the World is a revolution- 
ary order that was organized in Chicago in 1904 by a 
group of radical labor leaders. Its motives and pur- 
poses are smiliar to those of Syndicalism, but it stresses 
the " One Big Union " idea. That is, the I. W. W. aims 
to include all workmen regardless of craft, skill, wages, 


or living conditions. The character of the I. W. W. 
organization may easily be seen in the preamble to their 
platform : " The working class and the employer class 
have nothing in common. . . . Between these two 
classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the 
world organize as a class, take possession of the earth 
and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage 
system. Instead of the conservative motto * A fair 
day's wage for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on 
our banner, ' Abolition of the wage system.' " 

In the view of the I. W. W., the employer has become 
a mere useless growth upon the body of society; no 
agreement between worker and employer can have any 
binding force ; permanent settlements are impossible. 
Therefore the I. W. W. strikes at a time when the blow 
will be most effective. The I. W. W. does not approve 
of destruction of the factory or mine as he hopes to 
take over the industrial plant in good working order, 
but when the rush season is on, or when the time limit 
of contracts is up, the I. W. W. calls a strike. When 
all injury possible at the time is done to the employer, 
the employees go back to work, and bide their time for 
the next chance to cripple their natural enemy. Such 
methods of wearing out the employer are characterized 
as " sabotage." Sabotage may consist in throwing 
the machinery out of order, the using of wrong mate- 
rials, systematic loitering at work, or exposure of the 
employer's trade secrets. 

Since the war, the line between radical Socialism and 
the I. W. W. is hard to draw. Indeed the red wing 
of the socialist movement glories in its fellowship with 
the I. W. W. and loudly stigmatizes the prominent 
leaders of political socialism as " yellow " socialists. 
The I. W. W. point to the Communistic Manifesto of 


Marx as being in harmony with their aims and pur- 
poses. In the ranks of the I. W. W. there is no place 
for lawyers, ministers, and other middle-class people. 
As to what will be the next step after their ends are 
secured they take no care. To quote a recent I. W. W. 
writer : ..." In its final conception of the future, the 
I. W. W. is serenely visionary." A leader of the I. 
W. W. when asked what they expected to happen after 
the collapse of the present industrial system, calmly 
answered, " We shall see." 

The Industrial Workers of the World carry on their 
operations chiefly in industrial districts among tex- 
tile, lumber, and marine workers, where large masses of 
foreign laborers are herded together. Although on ac- 
count of the activity of its leaders and the startling 
nature of its doctrines, the order has become widely 
talked of, its membership is small. 


Since the collapse of Russia in the midst of the Great 
War, the astonished world has witnessed the domina- 
tion of that country by the most extremely radical ele- 
ment of Socialism, the Maximists, or, as they are com- 
monly called, the Bolsheviki. This word simply means 
"majority." The party in power has adapted itself 
to " the soviet," a method of carrying on governmental 
aff^airs that is congenial to Russian traditions and cus- 
tom. The town or city " soviet " consists of delegates 
sent from associations of workers in various trades or 
professions. The rural soviet is- elected from a gen- 
eral meeting of the people of a rural district or village. 
These Soviets send delegates to the next higher soviet, 
where delegates from a large district meet. These 
larger Soviets send delegates to the " All Russian 


Soviet," a central body which elects an executive com- 
mittee to carry on the government. It is evident from 
all accounts that Russia has been and is at present in 
the hands of a dictatorship that is guiding the destines 
of the nation. Just what processes and institutions 
have been set up in Russia, it will be impossible to de- 
termine until authentic information is supplied to the 
world outside of the former empire of the czars. What- 
ever the outcome of the situation may be, it is evident 
to all that the Russians must be allowed to work out 
their own problems in relation to domestic and foreign 


Since the ciose of the Great War, all Europe has 
become well acquainted with the various forms of 
Socialism, from the extreme revolutionary type as rep- 
resented by the Sparticus group in Germany, to a 
milder form in Czecho-Slovakia. At present, the world 
is in danger from uneducated democracy, for, as Karl 
Marx himself feared, the unbridled democracy of the 
mass of Europeans is finding itself helpless and ready 
to fall into the hands of violent demagogues, extreme 
ultra-revolutionists, who wish to abolish all existing 
forms of the social and political order. This situation 
has encouraged the extreme reactionaries, on the other 
hand, to make an attempt to bring back the old order 
of things as a defense against radicalism. 

In our own country there are almost as many brands 
of Socialism as there are men who profess to be social- 
ists. To add to this confusion, there are people who 
are constantly being labelled with the socialistic title 
who are not socialists at all. If a man believes in state 
ownership of public utilities, railroads, telegraph and 


telephone systems, some one calls him a " socialist." If 
a workman throws a monkey-wrench into a threshing 
machine, the newspapers display in giant headlines. 
..." Socialist Agitator." If an honest lover of his 
fellow men, be he public official or humble citizen, sick- 
ened at cruel and revolting industrial injustices, gives 
voice to the opinion that there should be a decided re- 
vision of our laws in relation to capital and labor, it 
soon begins to be whispered that he is a " socialist " or 
at least " socialistic." 

But there is a decided difference between the man 
who sincerely believes that reforms should be made in 
our government and economic system and the man who 
is an out-and-out socialist. The difference is funda- 
mentally a spiritual one. The real socialist has a de- 
votion to his belief in revolution that permeates and 
colors his every day life. It sets up a sort of permanent 
fever in his blood. In fact, Socialism has come to be a 
sort of religious cult. Having cast God out of all hu- 
man relations, the socialist has been compelled to intro- 
duce a substitute in his effort to make real the brother- 
hood of man. Moreover, in order to give life to his 
theory of revolution, he has taken as his own the Golden 
Rule, believing perhaps, that by giving it a new name he 
can make it work better than it has worked in the past. 


The methods advocated by the adherents of extreme 
socialism are to be condemned. They look to class war 
as the great solvent, and to that end strive by every 
means to excite class hatred and class consciousness. 
Once the " workers " have triumphed over the " rich " 
they promise that everything will be well. Although 
man, according to the socialist, has had a very poor 


record, has indeed, from the first been dominated by 
greed and selfishness, in some miraculous way he expects 
this same man to be almost perfect as soon as the " revo- 
lution " has come to pass and the socialistic panacea of 
collectivism has been applied. 

As far as it can be viewed as a protest against ex- 
treme individualism, Socialism is right. But Socialism, 
on the other hand, goes to the other extreme by depriv- 
ing the individual of his liberty and by making him a 
slave of the community. 

Socialists assume a most disconcerting attitude of 
cock-sureness. They know that they are right and 
everybody else is wrong. Relief for society is to come 
in the way they have marked out and in no other. 
Therefore the most extreme socialists are glad to see 
things going from bad to worse in the strife between 
capital and labor. The worse it gets, the sooner they 
expect the revolution to come. Majority opinion makes 
no appeal to them. In the Socialist Party if a mem- 
ber does not accept the whole platform, out he goes. 
Their methods are as autocratic as any despot's ever 
were, their " absolute majority " is as great a tyranny 
as was ever exercised by Czar or Kaiser. 

A sociai^ist's testimony 

As an indication of their radical principles and de- 
mands, we quote the following paragraphs from a book 
written by an American socialist in 1916: 

"A temporary socialist city government failed to 
do the few things that a socialist city administration 
may do which are more or less in accordance with larger 
Socialistic aims. For example, they should have made 
the public schools vehicles of Socialistic propaganda, 



and so at the public expense have indoctrinated the 
young with revolutionary doctrine." 

Of the war between Socialism and religion he says : 
" Therefore the Socialists are against organized re- 
ligion. ... It is an issue which had better be sharp- 
ened and not blurred with timid explanations. Who- 
ever is not for us is against us. . . . Nothing can be 
sillier, more inept than what is called Christian Social- 
ism, an artificial hybrid." 

His definition of a socialist is sharp and clear. " The 
class struggle is a fact. The economic interpretation 
of history is a way of accounting for the fact, of ex- 
plaining the great revolution which has already come, 
and of predicting what the next revolution will be. The 
Socialist is any one who wishes that in the contest of 
classes the working class shall prevail to the destruc- 
tion of all other classes, so that there shall be no class 
in the world but workers, and that everything above 
groiinl and underground upon which the human race 
depends for a living shall be owned and administered 
by society as a whole without regard to race, creed, 
color, or previous condition of servitude or mastery. 
Any one who so wills, wishes, hopes, or believes is a 



Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record 

One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the 

Truth forever on the scaffold. Wrong forever on the throne, — 
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown 
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own. 

James Russell Lowell. 

To get even a faint glimmering of the causes that 
led to the Great War, it is necessary to look hastily 
over the immediate past of the countries that compose 
Europe, and to survey with attention the 1914 map of 
that continent. The whole continent of Europe is only 
about as large as the United States ; France and Ger- 
many each has an area about equal to that of Texas ; 
while Great Britain's territorial extent corresponds to 
that of our New England States. 

To understand the war, a brief review should be 
made of European conditions during recent years. In 
the century preceding the uniting of the German states 
in 1870, France had emerged from the social upheaval 
caused by the French Revolution, had passed through 
the period of the Empire under Napoleon I, and finally 
had fallen under the sway of Napoleon III, the nephew 
of the Great Emperor. 


England and Prussia had defeated Napoleon I at 

Waterloo in 1815, leaving England the undisputed mis- 



tress of the seas and giving the German states a chance 
to assume a prominent position on the mainland of the 
continent. Prussia, under Chancellor Bismarck, had 
in 1866 been made the leading state in the North Ger- 
man Confederation with William I of Prussia as the 
President of the new league of states. Bismarck, who 
was looking for some bait that would induce the South 
German States to come into the German union, took ad- 
vantage of a threatened breach between France and 
Prussia over the successor to the Spanish crown, to 
bring on a war which, he rightly judged, would end in 
a victory for German arms. 

The French had demanded that the candidate, a 
Hohenzollern, be withdrawn and William I had com- 
plied with the request, and sent a telegram — the now 
famous " Ems Dispatch " — to Bismarck telling him 
of the interview that he had had with the French dip- 
lomat. Bismarck rewrote the dispatch so that it ap- 
peared that the German King had been harsh and curt 
and had virtually shut the diplomatic door in the 
French ambassador's face. Bismarck sent the edited 
dispatch to the newspapers expecting to cause a rup- 
ture with France. He was not disappointed; the 
French Emperor, Napoleon HI, was highly incensed 
and France at once declared war on Germany. 

The Franco-Prussian war lasted from July 19, 1870, 
to January 28, 1871, a little over six months. The 
contest though brief was decisive. Much of the action 
of the war took place about the fortresses of Metz 
and Strassburg. The French Marshall, McMahon, 
having no support in the field or in the government, was 
utterly unprepared to cope with the highly organized 
German military machine that Bismarck had prepared 
for such an occasion. One part of the French army 


was finally penned up in the virtually impregnable Metz, 
where it was starved into surrender. The remainder 
of the army met inglorious defeat at Sedan, September 
2, 1870. 

Napoleon III fell in the dust at William's feet. He 
was spurned alike by his enemies and his " subjects." 
Immediately upon the collapse of the Second Empire, 
the Third French Republic was declared, and under a 
provisional " Government of the Public Defense," the 
war against Germany was continued. The German 
army won one victory after another ; Strassburg fell, 
Metz soon followed, and before long the Germans were 
on their way to Paris. The proud city was forced to 
capitulate. During the long hours of the never-to-be- 
forgotten day when the conquering army took posses- 
sion of the French capital, the spiked helmets of the 
German soldiers, file after file, passed into the city. 


Dazzled by the success of Prussian arms, the South 
German states hastened to ask to be admitted to Bis- 
marck's Federation. Their request granted, it needed 
but a suggestion from Bismarck to bring about the offer 
of the Imperial Crown to William I. William promptly 
accepted the honor and, on January 18, 1871, in the 
palace of the French kings at Versailles, the King of 
Prussia became Kaiser of the German Empire. Bis- 
marck had succeeded in his design, not only by blood 
and iron, but by trickery and falsehood. 

The victorious Germans exacted the last pound of 
flesh from prostrate France. Alsace and Lorraine, the 
great iron region of France, with the fortress of Metz 
and the noble city of Strassburg, were laid down as 
the ransom for the nation's life. It is interesting in 


the light of the present to read what Bismarck had to 
saj about the necessity of retaining this territory: 
" In the possession of Germany, Strassburg and Metz 
acquire a defensive character. In rendering it difficult 
for France to act on the offensive, we are acting, at the 
same time, in the interest of Europe, which is that of 
peace. No disturbance of the peace of Europe is to be 
feared from Germany." ! 

Besides the territorial indemnity, an enormous money 
payment — enormous for 1871, not for 1919 — was 
exacted; five billion francs, or about one billion dollars. 
A German army of occupation was stationed in France, 
to remain until all of the conditions of the treaty, in- 
cluding the payment of the five billion franc indemnity, 
were carried out. By a remarkable oversight, no time 
limit was set for the payment of the debt, Bismarck 
thinking it would take at least ten years to make the 
final settlement. 

But Bismarck did not understand French patriotism. 
The peasants owned nearly all of the land in France 
in small holdings of less than twenty-five acres each, 
and at the call of the government, they went down into 
their stockings, brought out their savings, invested them 
in government securities, and paid off the debt within a 
year. Thus, at one stroke, they were rid of the debt 
and the obnoxious foreign army. 


After the victory over France, Bismarck went back 
to the Wilhelmstrasse, his official residence in Berlin 
well satisfied with the result of his statesmanship. His 
great desire had been realized. Prussia was the head of 
the German Empire. The Iron Chancellor was willing 
to spend the remainder of his days in building up the 


strength and prestige of the Teutonic state. He had 
no colonial ambitions for Germany ; indeed he was kept 
busy with troublesome internal affairs. 

When William I, King of Prussia and Kaiser of the 
German Empire, died in 1888, he was succeeded by his 
son, Frederick III, who had married Victoria, the 
daughter of the English Queen. Frederick IH, a man 
of sterling character and liberal views, lived but a few 
months. He was in turn succeeded by his son, William 
II. The young King has a taste for managing his 
own affairs and it was not long until he dismissed the 
veteran chancellor, Bismarck. From time to time, 
Americans heard of this spectacular German Kaiser, 
who, though he had a very good opinion of his own 
powers, seemed a decent sort of ruler by all accounts. 
Meantime Germany was fast becoming the leader of 
the world in science and in manufactures, as she had 
long been in education. 


In many ways England had prospered wonderfully 
during the latter part of the nineteenth century. She 
was at the head of a great colonial empire ; she vir- 
tually ruled the seas over which she exercised a policy 
of " enlightened selfishness." Her people at home had 
pushed popular government forward in a remarkable 
way. Yet her land system was one of the worst in 
Europe, nearly all her soil being held together in great 
estates. Moreover, she still had her unsettled Irish 
question, which after seven hundred fifty years of strug- 
gle remained her most serious governmental problem. 


For centuries the House of Hapsburg had ruled over 
a strange conglomeration of peoples in central Europe 


making up a number of territorial divisions, but known 
in a general way as the Austrian Empire. The early 
part of the nineteenth century had been unkind to the 
Hapsburgs. Some of their provinces had been lost to 
Italy, and Bismarck, in the reorganization of Germany 
that followed the Franco-Prussian War, had expelled 
them from the German states, where their interests were 
formerly considerable. The principal large divisions of 
territory over which this famous House retained control 
in 1866 were Austria and Hungary. 

Hungary, dominated by the proud Magyars, a people 
of Slavic and Mongolian blood, took advantage of the 
unhappy plight in which their rulers found themselves 
and demanded an independent kingdom. In this it was 
successful, establishing its own parliament, naming 
Budapest as its capital, but choosing Francis Joseph, 
Emperor of Austria, as its King. The two govern- 
ments shared the general taxes that applied to both 
countries, but kept separate the administration of their 

Austria-Hungary, or the Dual Empire, as it came to 
be known after 1867, was bound together under Francis 
Joseph, who was Emperor of Austria and King of Hun- 
gary for sixty-eight years (184-8-1916). But in order 
to understand the true situation it is important to re- 
member that within the borders of Austria-Hungary in 
1914 there was a mixture of nationalities and languages 
that could never be made into one homogeneous state. 

The dominant race in Austria was the German, but 
they were not the majority of the whole population. 
There were besides, Czechs in Bohemia, ardent for lib- 
erty and chafing under German domination ; Poles in 
the territory that was once a part of the ancient king- 
dom of Poland; Slovaks in Moravia and Silicia; Croats 


in Croatia; Slovenes in Slavonia; Styrians in Styria; 
and Serbs in the more recently annexed provinces of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina. All of these were Slavic 
peoples with a racial kinship to the Russians ; all were 
distrustful of their Teutonic overlords. 

In Hungary, the ruling race — the Magyars — had 
fought passionately for liberty, but, having gained it, 
denied like rights to the subjects who were under the 
rule of the kingdom. The Magyars alone were allowed 
the privilege of suffrage ; they held all the money and 
lands, and, though in a minority, they managed to keep 
control of the government. 

Here were sM the ingredients of a witch's brew, which 
it has proved to be among nations. For years people 
said, " Wait until Emperor Francis Joseph dies, then 
Austria-Hungary will fall to pieces. Every one in that 
empire is an irreconcilable." Under the pressure of 
German influence the breaking up of the Dual Mon- 
archy was postponed until Germany herself was beaten 
in the Great War. 


To the east, occupying over half of Europe and ex- 
tending across Northern Asia to the Pacific, lay Russia, 
the mystery of nations, the seat of unthinkable powers, 
the source of the threatening " Slav peril " dreaded 
by the people of Western Europe. Russia's history is 
full of tantalizing romance and dark, shadowy horror. 
She emerged from a state of Asiatic half-savagery, in 
the early years of the eighteenth century, at the com- 
mand of Peter the Great (1689-1725). He found Rus- 
sia untouched by European civilization and determined 
to Europeanize her. Because he wanted a " window " 
on the sea for his country, he built St. Petersburg — 


the Petrograd of to-day — on the marshes of the Baltic 
inlet which he had wrested from Sweden. He moved 
the capital to this new city, abandoning ancient Mos- 
cow, a city half oriental, half European. He taxed the 
long sleeves and long beards of the Russian peasantry 
with a view of making them unpopular and thus accom- 
plished much " civilizing " on the surface, at least. 

But Peter the Great did not give his people freedom. 
He was their absolute Czar. His daughter, the Em- 
press Elizabeth, who followed him, seized most of Fin- 
land and added it to the Russian dominion. Then came 
Catherine, a powerful and unscrupulous German prin- 
cess. She extended her empire toward the Black Sea 
on the south, and then, looking toward the west for 
lands to conquer, saw Poland, a weak, distracted, badly 
governed but nobly-peopled kingdom. Securing the 
cooperation of Prussia and later of Austria, in three 
successive strokes — in 1772, 1793, and in 1795 — 
these " royal robbers " cut Poland into pieces, and 
divided its territory among themselves. Russia, as 
usual, " digesting its frontiers," seized the largest 
share ; Prussia was well pleased with her spoil, which in- 
cluded Danzig; Austria, the weakest of the brigands, 
received the smallest portion of territorial loot. 

For many years thereafter Russia kept up her digest- 
ing process — Courland, Esthonia, and Livonia became 
hers. The vast Russian empire included the tremen- 
dous expanses of Siberia, which reached to the Pacific 
on the east and threatened England's power in India 
on the southeast. It was the greatest " absolute " mon- 
archy in the world. We learned in our American geog- 
raphies that the Czar held the lives of all his people 
in the hollow of his hand and that if one word was 


spoken against the government, the offender was 
whipped off to Siberia, there to languish in " penal " 
servitude. The Russian government became, in Amer- 
ican minds, synonymous with all that was horrible, cruel, 
and tyrannical. The Russian peasants bore their ter- 
rible oppression in a stolid sort of way — they are a 
mild, gentle, kind-hearted religious people — but revo- 
lutionary doctrine flourished in the dark and the forces 
of revolt gathered, until, in 1906, there was a popular 
uprising that led the Czar to grant to his people a 
representative assembly, called the " Duma." Of the 
real Russia, America had known very little in the days 
before the Great War and since that struggle, this 
nation, mighty in area and possibilities, has remained 
hidden in mystery. 


Previous to its dismemberment, which was completed 
in 1795, Poland had been, in extent of territory, one of 
the largest of the European nations. Politically, how- 
ever, it had been weak. There was no middle class in 
Poland, but about one hundred thousand noblemen and 
twelve million serfs. Every noble had a right to vote 
for the king and one " black ball " stopped an election. 
This necessity for unanimous consent — the paralyzing 
" liberum veto " — made a political deadlock the normal 
condition in Poland. 

After Russia, Prussia, and Austria had stolen all of 
its territory, Poland was supposed to be exterminated. 
But Poland did not die. Her exiled sons walked the 
earth far from their loved native land, but they never 
ceased to be Poles and to cherish dreams of the day of 
restoration. The millions that were not able to leave 


their native country remained at heart a separate peo- 
ple, though each conqueror strove in his own way to 
absorb the Poles and destroy their loyalty to a nation 
that politically had ceased to exist. When the final 
test of strength in the Great War came, it was found 
that while the Poles might be forced into the armies of 
their Teuton overlords, they could never be made to 
fight for them with any degree of effectiveness. The 
final crumbling of the German morale was largely due 
to these soldiers who hated the autocracy under whose 
banners they were forced to enlist. 


In southern Europe Italy had become, in govern- 
ment, a United Italy in 1870, but she was far from 
united in reality. There was a distinct divergence in 
ideals and politics between north and south Italy. 
Though the country was a constitutional monarchy, 
suffrage was neglected by a great part of the people, 
largely because of their lack of political training. 
Spain was almost unthought of — even the Spanish- 
American War (1898) failed to revive much interest 
in that country. Portugal had thrown off her king. 
Switzerland was a country of superlative political effi- 
ciency, with a republican form of government. 

In the northern part of Europe, Norway, Sweden, 
Denmark, Holland, and Belgium were making great 
strides both economically and politically, while a steady 
growth in constitutional liberty along sane and safe 
lines had been going on in them since 1815. Nor- 
way was the first nation to grant suffrage to women. 
Belgium was frequently spoken of as the most highly 
civilized country on the globe. 



Not until very recent years did the world begin to 
hear of the Balkan countries and the Balkan question, 
although the Near East had figured in world politics 
for many centuries. The territory in question had 
from time immemorial been under the control of Tur- 
key, who owed her European existence to the jealousy 
of the stronger powers, by which she had been left as 
a " buffer " to curb the ambitions of Russia and Aus- 
tria. In 1821, Greece succeeded in wresting her inde- 
pendence from Turkey. Gradually the power of Tur- 
key was weakened, until after numerous efforts, there 
were set up besides Greece several new states, at 
first but partially free from Turkish domination, but 
after a time entirely freed from the Moslem yoke. 
Here Roumania, proudly boasting descent from an an- 
cient colony of the Romans, came into existence. Here, 
too, arose Serbia and Bulgaria, ardent, jealous, and 
determined to expand their dominion over their " own 
people " regardless of the fact that it was almost im- 
possible to distinguish who properly belonged to them. 
Besides these was Montenegro, a tiny principality lying 
near the Adriatic; Albania, a strange country inhab- 
ited by lawlessly-independent Mohammedans ; and two 
provinces, Bosnia and Herzegovina, peopled largely by 
Serbians, but regarded by Austria as properly belong- 
ing to herself. 


Bitterly jealous warfare among these Balkan nations 
was intermittently carried on, varied by common move- 
ments against Turkey, the enemy of all. These wars 


and the generally unsettled condition of the Balkan 
countries were annoying to the rest of Europe, since 
a settled condition was of immense importance to the 
great powers — England, France, Germany, Austria- 
Hungary, and Russia. Napoleon had furnished a fear- 
ful example of the effect of a continental upheaval. 
Above all things else peace was desirable in order that 
national development, colonial expansion, and the un- 
disturbed extension of commercial enterprises might be 
carried on. In a word, it seemed to the best interests of 
all to maintain what had come to be known as the 
" Balance of Power " in Europe. Considering the 
varied interests at stake and the close quarters into 
which all these nations were crowded, it is easy to see 
the need of constant watching to keep this European 
balance true and undisturbed. 

The Crimean War of 1858 had been an ignoble strug- 
gle to keep the dearly prized Balance of Power from 
dipping to one side. In that war, England, France, 
and Italy ranged themselves with the " unspeakable 
Turk " to block the aggressions of Russia. At the close 
of the war Turkey's place in Europe was assured. 
Though her atrocious cruelties in Armenia and in the 
Balkans were undeniably without excuse, the great 
powers of Europe decided that she was needed in Eu- 
rope to maintain the Balance of Power. Russia must 
not possess Constantinople, though she longed with nat- 
ural desire for a port in the "warm blue water"; she 
must content herself with St. Petersburg, her window 
on the chill Gulf of Riga, an arm of the bleak Baltic 
Sea, whose outlet to the high seas was jealously guarded, 
not only by Germany, but by Norway, Sweden, and 



After the Franco-Prussian War, Bismarck realized 
the need of support in order to make it seem hopeless 
for France to try to regain Alsace and Lorraine. A 
friendly alliance was therefore made between the em- 
perors of Germany, Austria, and Russia by which 
France was practically isolated and made helpless. But 
Russia and Austria were rivals in the Balkans, and 
when, after a war of conquest in which Russia took 
much of the Balkan territory from Turkey, a dispute 
arose with the other European nations over the reten- 
tion of this territory, Germany sided with Austria 
against her other ally. This action made a hopeless 
breach between Russia and Germany. 

Bismarck realizing the need of support, looked to 
Austria for a closer and more binding treaty. This 
he secured in 1879. By it each of these nations was 
bound to help the other if attacked by Russia. If 
either Germany or Austria was set upon by any other 
nation — France was probably chiefly in mind — the 
ally not attacked promised to remain neutral, except 
that if Russia should go to the aid of the aggressor, 
the allies wccre pledged to make common cause for their 
mutual defense. 

In 1882 Bismarck encouraged France to establish a 
new African colony, although Italy was much opposed 
to this. Then the German Chancellor induced Italy 
to join with Germany and Austria in a Triple Alliance, 
which continued and expanded the general terms of the 
German-Austrian agreement in such a way as to include 
the third nation. This gave Germany the strength 
she needed against her two chief rivals in power on the 
continent of Europe. 


France realized that she was left in an unfortunate 
position and that the Balance of Power was badly 
tipped toward the side of the Triple Alliance. At the 
same time England, who had been coming constantly 
into diplomatic friction with Germany over colonial 
possessions, saw the need of closer relations with one or 
more strong powers to hold Germany within bounds. It 
came about, therefore, without any binding agreements 
among the three nations, that England, France, and 
Russia had been worsted in a Japanese-Russian war. 
ters that were common to all of the nations. This 
harmony of action and apparent diplomatic under- 
standing bound these three nations together in what 
was known as the " Entente Cordiale " or the " Triple 

It might be asked how it happened that Great Brit- 
ain, a constitutional monarchy, associated herself with 
Russia,- an absolute despotism. The answer is found 
in the fact that while the home government of Great 
Britain is democratic and responsive to the popular 
will, her minister of foreign relations is removed from 
popular control and can make open or secret treaties 
without the consent or knowledge of the English people. 
When the American realizes that the same is true of 
the French Republic and the Italian Constitutional 
Monarchy, he is able to see clearly the wide gap be- 
tween European diplomacy and that of the United 
States, where foreign treaties are negotiated " by the 
President, by and with the advice of the senate." 

Careless of European alliances, the world wagged on. 
In America an era of unprecedented prosperity had set 
in, and the disturbances in the Balkans, in Austria, and 
in Russia excited little interest. Americans knew that 
Russia had been worsted in a Japanese-Russian war. 


Thej were very proud of the fact that President Roose- 
velt had helped bring about a satisfactory peace. 
They knew also that there had occurred a Balkan war, 
from which echoes came of horrible deeds committed, 
not only on men bearing arms, but on women and chil- 
dren. They knew also that Serbia had come off the 

Austria, after a few years' protectorate over the 
virtually Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina, had, in the 
confusion of the Balkan situation, quietly and finally 
annexed them. She needed a buffer toward the South. 
Serbia was powerless to protest, and the two provinces 
were powerless to resist openly, although their peoples 
had no desire to become a part of Austria. Secret 
societies began to grow and plans for future readjust- 
ment were hatched in the dark. 


During the nineteenth century, the European powers 
had by no means confined their attention to Europe. 
Germany, in particular, had waked up to her need for 
expansion outside of Europe. At the same time France 
and Italy were anxiously scanning the colonial horizon. 
England seemed mainly anxious to keep what she al- 
ready had. 

Up to the time of the American Revolution, the 
colonial policy of all European nations had been con- 
ducted with the idea that colonies existed for the pur- 
pose of furnishing the mother country with commodi- 
ties which could not be produced at home. They were 
not allowed to injure the industries of the mother coun- 
try in any way, nor help those of her rivals. More- 
over, the colonies were expected to help bear the bur- 
dens of government and of the army and navy. The 













Africa after the Great War 


successful revolt of the American colonies taught Eng- 
land a much-needed lesson. She learned that she could 
not keep her hold on distant colonies, at least her 
colonies of white people, except under a liberal policy. 

Consequently, England pursued an enlightened pol- 
icy toward the colonies that had been settled by Euro- 
pean immigration. By 1914, the British Empire was 
far in the lead of all other countries in colonial pos- 
sessions. Besides Australia, the Dominion of Canada, 
and the South African Confederation, she had India, 
with its three hundred million Hindus, while Gibraltar, 
Malta, the Suez Canal, Hongkong, and innumerable 
other ports of call and coaling stations, made a com- 
plete chain of communication around the globe. Great 
Britain, also, acted as guardian to Egypt, which was 
entirely under her " Sphere of Influence," a new and 
vague term that began to be used to indicate the hold 
that a powerful country might have on a backward one. 
This influence, it may be added, frequently grew into 
power that annexed the backward country to the strong 
one as was the case when Austria took over the control 
of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

By 1914, France had much colonial territory, al- 
though she was far behind the British Empire. She 
had practical possession of the great desert of Sahara 
and her Sphere of Influence in Algeria had become fixed. 
She had Madagascar, and was casting eyes on the basin 
of the Tigris and Euphrates. Her chief rival in north- 
western Africa was Italy. At one time war had threat- 
ened, but matters had been patched up and readjusted 
to suit France. Italy, though outwitted by France 
in northern Africa, had two small African coastal 
strips — Eritrea, on the Red Sea, and Somaliland, ex- 


tending southwest from Cape Guardafui along the In- 
dian Ocean. 

Holland, with an European territory of minor im- 
portance, had vast colonial possessions in the East 
Indies, islands of great natural resources as ^'^et scarcely 
touched. Spain and Portugal had long ago lost their 
last colonial possessions. 

Germany came late into the colonial field. Although 
Bismarck had showed no interest in such expansion, 
before the end of his career as Chancellor, the Germans 
had established a protectorate over two large provinces 
in western Africa — Togoland and Kamerun — which 
contained an area of over two hundred thousand square 
miles. Later she acquired the vast territory known as 
German West Africa, the extent of which was greater 
than all of Germany in Europe. Even larger terri- 
tories were secured in East Africa off the Coast of Zan- 
zibar, and the greater part of New Guinea and the 
Caroline Islands were added to the German possessions. 

This would seem to be a fair beginning for legitimate 
colonial expansion on the part of Germany, but for a 
country that had begun to dream of world empire, it 
was not suflicicint. Because of her desire to expand 
and because of her doubling population, Germany 
looked about for other lands to make into German col- 
onics. She found there was little chance for real col- 
onization in the territory she had acquired, for the cli- 
mate of her African lands was deadly to Europeans. 
.If Germany was to grow, it was evident that it must be 
by extending her boundaries. 

Thus came about the " Middle Europe " project, by 
which Germany saw the possibility of extending her 
influence to the southeast, through Austria-Hungary, 


through the Balkans, through Turkey in Europe and 
Turkey in Asia, through Palestine and by way of Mes- 
opotamia, into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates 
as far as the Persian Gulf. If the German Empire 
could expand in that direction, she might become the 
greatest power in the world. Germany at once en- 
tered into a close alliance with Austria-Hungary, took 
on most cordial relations with the Turk, and began 
to plan a Berlin-to-Bagdad railway. 


The only rival Germany feared was England, and she 
feared her only on the sea. Then began that dramatic 
struggle between Germany and England in their mutual 
effort to outstrip each other in ship-building. For 
every dreadnaught that Germany launched, England 
was bound to launch two. Germany built the Kiel 
Canal, thus gaining a direct access to the open sea, an 
advantage that she had not before possessed. Just be- 
fore 1914 she enlarged and deepened this waterway and 
completely overhauled her fleet. England struggled 
with her labor problems, her Irish problem, her war on 
poverty, her woman suffrage question, and the burden 
of taxation demanded by the building of dreadnoughts. 

War had been talked of between England and Ger- 
manj^ for years, but few people paid any attention to 
the talk. A great war was considered an impossibility, 
for the world was surely too old and too wise and too 
humane to allow such a thing. And England, though 
with determined effort she continued to outbuild the 
German navy, really did not expect war. France, how- 
ever, felt a dread of the Germans and the powerful 
German military machine to such a degree that she in- 
creased her standing army by a wider military training. 

Courtesy of Longmans, Green and Co. 

The Peace Commissioners of the Uxited States, John Jay, John 

Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Henhy Laurens, Who Met 

the British Representatives at Paris, and Concluded the 

Treaty of Independence, "1783. 

From an unfinished portrait hy Benjamin West. The figure hehind Frank- 

lin is his grandson 


That increased army saved France. Belgium's refusal 
to break her neutrality and France's prompt mobiliza- 
tion held back the German army until help came from 


One day in June, 1914, the Crown Prince of Austria, 
Francis Ferdinand, was assassinated in the Bosnian 
town of Serajevo. Little attention was paid to this not 
unusual happening — assassinations in the Balkans 
were common affairs. But before one month had 
passed, Austria had seized upon the occurrence as an 
excuse to declare war on Serbia, Russia had come to 
Serbia's relief, and then in quick succession the members 
of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente lined up 
their forces for deadly combat. By August 4, 1914, 
the World War had begun. 

The story of the mobilization of the armies of Ger- 
many and of France is more wonderful than any fairy 
tale ever written. When Germany declared war, every 
German soldier in active service was ready. Every 
German in the reserve army promptly answered the 
call to arms, went to the army headquarters nearest his 
home, gave his name and number, removed his clothing, 
rolled it up, and attached to it the tag he took from the 
gray-green uniform, which was there waiting for him. 
Having put on the uniform, he received a second suit of 
soldier's clothes, suspended his identification tag about 
his neck, and presented himself for his arms. These re- 
ceived, he proceeded to a place long before designated 
for his division. He was in the field within forty-eight 
hours, completely equipped and ready for action. 

The story of the mobilization of the French army is 
no less thrilling, though it was not so scientifically effi- 

2 N 


























cient. The fateful signal was given in the rural towns 
by semaphore. At the summons, men dropped their 
work, placed on their arms the bit of insignia that clas- 
sified them, boarded the next train, and were carried to 
the point of mobilization. The little towns, the pleas- 
ant villages, the fields ready for the harvest, were 
cleared of men able to bear arms within forty-eight 
hours. Not an outcry was heard, only, in memory of 
Alsace-Lorraine, the occasional hushed murmur, " La 

The assassination of the Crown Prin<^e, Francis Ferd- 
inand, Austrian heir-apparent, in an obscure Bosnian 
town, was but the match that touched the fuse to the 
complicated and closely connected series of deadly ex- 
plosives that had been laid long before by the hands of 
men who could not have known what they were doing. 
The Great War came as the result of the selfishness and 
greedy ambition of governments directed by oflScials who 
scarcely considered the happiness and well-being of the 
people who were to bear the crushing burden of the 
world conflict. 



The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, 
is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as 
little Political connection as possible. So far as we have already 
formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good 
faith — Here let us stop. 

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none 
but a very remote relation. . . . 'Tis our true policy to steer clear 
of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. . . . 
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by 
policy, humanity, and interest. 

George Washington (Farewell Address) . 

The geographical position of the United States has 
been fortunate for the working out on a gigantic scale 
of the hitherto untried experiment of government of 
the people, by the people. The United States was 
able to make the most of this natural isolation from 
Old World affairs, because she had developed a well- 
marked ideal of foreign policy, which has given her to 
a great degree unvexed freedom in shaping her own 
course. It cannot be looked upon as other than a 
happy fact that in the past this country had been con- 
tent to mind her own affairs and grow up alone, even at 
the expense of being called provincial. Far removed 
from the conflicts that disturbed Europe, widely differ- 
ing in governmental ideals, it may be said that, in a 
sense, America did not speak the language of Europe, 
nor does she do so now. 

It must be remembered that England, from whom 



America has received so great an inheritance of con- 
stitutional form and spirit, was not governmentally the 
England of to-day when the American Constitution was 
adopted. At that time there was no political power 
resting in the great mass of English people. On the 
continent of Europe, even after the French Revolution, 
there was less of political freedom than in England. 
The United States, therefore, had little reason for be- 
coming enmeshed in what Washington characterized as 
" the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, or 

The settled policy of the United States in the con- 
duct of foreign affairs has been in the main reasonable 
and sincere, although sometimes its actual working out 
has been more or less indefinite. In a broad sense the 
foreign relations of the United States have been founded 
on five or six main policies : friendly encouragement of 
popular government in other countries, neutrality, free- 
dom of the seas, the Monroe Doctrine, international ar- 
bitration and " the open door." That is, the United 
States has 'encouraged and, as soon as possible, recog- 
nized countries seeking to set up a republican form of 
government; she has maintained neutrality while wars 
in which she was not directly concerned were taking 
place ; from the beginning also, this country has denied 
the right of any foreign power to interfere with legiti- 
mate commerce on the high seas ; since the promulga- 
tion of the Monroe Doctrine, she has taken a stand 
against European colonization in the New World and 
against foreign interference in American politics ; when- 
ever it has been possible, disputes with foreign coun- 
tries have been settled by arbitration, and finally the 
"Open Door" policy calls for a free hand in trading 
with undeveloped countries such as China. 



The United States has frequently expressed her sym- 
pathy and given her support to democratic movements 
in other countries and has even interfered in one or 
two cases where help seemed necessary to forward the 
cause of democracy. Thus her moral assistance and 
influence have greatly aided the spread of government 
by the people ; for while it is true that the United States 
has always refrained from taking sides in the internal 
quarrels in foreign countries, at the same time her 
leading men have consistently shown a warm interest in 
movements toward popular government. From the 
first days of our national life there has been mutual 
sympathy between liberal-minded Europeans and Amer- 
icans. " My anxious recollections, my sympathetic 
feelings, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited 
whenever in any country I see an oppressed nation un- 
furl the banners of freedom," was Washington's stately 
way of expressing sympathy for those who sought polit- 
ical liberty. President Monroe and Henry Clay en- 
couraged not only the republics of South America, but 
also the revolutionists in Europe, especially those of 

The United States was an asylum for Carl Schurz 
and other disappointed German liberals who came here 
after the failure of the Frankfort Convention to secure 
a popular government for Germany in 1848. An Amer- 
ican ship was sent to fetch the Hungarian patriot, 
Kossuth, to the United States after Hungary's unsuc- 
cessful attempt to gain independence in 1849. Daniel 
Webster at the time, replying warmly to a remon- 
strance* from the Austrian government, clearly stated 
the American position. He said : " When the United 


States behold the people of foreign countries . . . spon- 
taneously moving toward the adoption of institutions 
like their .own, it surely cannot be expected of them to 
remain wholly indifferent spectators." Political 'refu- 
gees have always found safety in the United States pro- 
vided they did not hold views inimical to the govern- 


Immediately after Washington had been chosen Pres- 
ident, the French Revolution broke loose upon the 
world. In its first aspects the movement found many 
sympathizers in America, but its later developments 
frightened and repelled .even those most friendly to 
popular government. As affairs across the Atlantic 
went from bad to worse, the statesmen of this country 
saw clearly that the problems of Europe were not those 
of a government founded on the consent of the gov- 
erned. It was evident also that the United States was 
too weak to stand up against the established govern- 
ments of the Old World, although at the same time 
they sincerely believed that the American ideal of gov- 
ernment was superior to the European ideal. 

Washington, sagacious and far-seeing, declared that 
the United States should have no connection with Euro- 
pean politics, " other than merely commercial." John 
Adams set forth the same .idea. Jefferson expressed 
the feeling of America in these words : " We have a per- 
fect horror at anything like connecting ourselves with 
the politics of Europe. They have so many other i'n- 
terests different from ours, that we must avoid being 
entangled with them." 

This intention of aloofness was finally made very 
plain in Washington's policy of neutrality. On the 
occasion of the war between England and France in 
1793, Washington, as President, declared the neutrality 


of the United States and enforced it by the fir-st Neu- 
trality Act of the United States, June 5, 1794. This 
act made it an offense to enlist in the service of a bel- 
ligerent nation while in the territory of the United 
States, to fit o'ut or arm a vessel intended to commit 
hostilities on a belligerent, or to prepare expeditions to 
be carried on from the soil of the United States against 
a belligerent. 

Washington emphasized and practically fixed this 
policy of isolation in his Farewell Address. He ex- 
pressed his ideas on that subject definitely when he said, 
" The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign 
nations is, 'in extending our commercial relations, to 
have with them as little political connections as pos- 
sible. So far as we have already formed engagements, 
let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here 
let us stop." " It is our true policy to steer clear of 
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign 
world. . . . We may safely trust to temporary alli- 
ances for extraordinary emergencies." 

Growing out of this determination on the part of 
the young Republic to keep herself clear of European 
politics, came the doctrine of European non-intervention 
in American affairs — a policy set up for Europe by 
America herself. Before the United States had lived 
many years-, it became- evident that she could not allow 
unfriendly European powers to gain controlling in- 
fluence over her nearest neighbors. The government 
was displeased when France gained Haiti in 1795 ; and 
when Louisiana passed into Napoleon's hands, Jeffer- 
son proposed that the United States " marry the Eng- 


lish fleet and nation " to ward off the power of France. 
But the alliance was not formed, for the far-seeing 
Napoleon sold the vast Louisiana territory to the 
United States with the remark, " I have given England 
a maritime rival that will sooner or later humble her 
pride." Not long after this, the United States gained 
possession of Florida, which had nominally been under 
the control of Spain. In so doing, she removed by one 
more step European influence in North America. 

The gulf between Europe and America widened per- 
ceptibly after the Battle of Waterloo, for Europe had 
fallen under the control of the strongest and most 
effective international union the world had ever seen. 
This league, the Quadruple Alliance — miscalled in 
America the Holy Alliance — was composed of Austria, 
Prussia, Russia, and England. 

It had for its main purpose the preservation of the 
peace of Europe, by keeping things " in status quo," 
that is, exactly as they had been settled by the Con- 
gress of Vienna. Metternich, prime minister of Austria, 
was the ruling spirit of the league. About 1820 when 
the league became unusually oppressive and reaction- 
ary, England gradually withdrew from its councils, 
while France was admitted. 


On the American side of the Atlantic, in the mean- 
time, things were not remaining as they had been, not 
even in South America, which before 1821, with the 
exception of Brazil and the British, Dutch, and French 
Guianas, had been divided into Spanish colonies. Be- 
tween 1810 and 1820, under the leadership, first of San 
Martin and later of Simon Bolivar, these colonies, 


which had been left to themselves during the Napoleonic 
period, began to set themselves up as independent re- 

The United States fearing, that having cast off the 
Spanish yoke, these weak states would fall a prey to 
more powerful foreign powers, began to talk of formally 
recognizing the new South Ame-rican Republics. As 
early as 1817, Henry Clay, who was largely responsible 
for our policy of friendship to South America, urged 
recognition, and in 1821, the United States officially 
recognized Buenos Ayres, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, 
Brazil, and Guatemala. 

At this, the Quadruple Alliance became dangerously 
active and proposed calling a European conference on 
American affairs. Such a suggestion boded no good 
for political freedom anywhere. George Canning, the 
British Minister of Foreign Affairs,- helped the United 
States and the South American Republics at this junc- 
ture, by expressing himself as willing to assist in set- 
ting forth a policy for American matters. 

Nor was the only difficulty concerning South Amer- 
ican affairs, the territory to the northwest was also 
under dispute. The southern boundaries of the Oregon 
country, as it was called at the time, had been definitely 
fixed in 1818 and the country jointly occupied by the 
United States and Great Britain, but the northern 
boundaries had remained undefined. In 1821 Russia 
became aggressive in the region of Alaska and the Czar 
issued an Imperial ukase proclaiming that the Pacific 
Coast as far south as the fifty-first parallel belonged to 
Russia and forbidding any one to approach it nearer 
than one hundred miles. 

John Quincy Adams, at this time Monroe^s Secretary 
of State, came out flatly in his instructions to the 



United States minister to Russia to the effect that he 
make it plain to the Czar" that, the management of both 
American continents must be left in American hands. 
Dispatches and messages were exchanged, and Adams 
prepared to defend American interests. Here Can- 
ning stepped in and proposed a joint declaration of 
Great Britain and the United States favoring a policy 
of non-interference by European powers in American 
affairs. Adams opposed the joint declaration against 
all the other members of the Cabinet. Even Jefferson 
and Madison, who had been consulted, advised the joint 
action. But Adams pointed out that such a declara- 
tion would entangle the United States in European af- 
fairs in such a way as t'o make it hard to insist upon 
future independent action. Adams, who had no relish 
for coming in " as a cock boat in the wake of a British 
man-of-war " won the day. If he had not carried his 
point, the' United States to-day might have had serious 
difficulty with European powers over acquiring Texas, 
New Mexico, California, Porto Rico, and Panama, and 
might even have found herself practically surrounded 
by the colonies of European nations. 

Finally it was decided that the attitude of the United 
States, in the question of European interference in 
American affairs should be dealt with in President Mon- 
roe's message to Congress. Accordingly, in the polite 
and formal language of diplomacy, " The Monroe Doc- 
trine " announced to Congress and to the world that 
thereafter the United States would allow no European 
power to establish colonies in the New World nor 
to interfere in American politics. It further declared 
that the United States intended to pursue its cus- 
tomary policy of non-interference in European 



In other words, the ^lonroe Doctrine after announc- 
ing that all American powers were closely related in 
spirit, served notice on foreign powers that henceforth 
the New World was determined to carry out its political 
experiments in its own way. It was a clear statement 

John Quixcy Adams 

As Secretary of State he caused the issuance of the Monroe Doc- 
trine and kept the United States clear of foreign alliances; as a 
United States Representative after his term as president, he fought 
for freedom to petition for redress of grievances and gave Lincoln 
a verbal precedent for freeing the slaves. 

of the theory that there were In the world two political 
systems, a monarcliial systeTn founded on military priTi- 
ciples, and a republican system founded on the will of 
the people, and that these two sets of principles hence- 
forth would confine themselves each to its own sphere. 
The iMonroe Doctrine placed the two systems before 
the world. 


The statement of the Monroe Doctrine was one thing; 
its carrying out has been and is another, and an en- 
tirely different thing. For as the years have passed 
the Monroe Doctrine, like the Constitution of the United 
States, has been changed and re-interpreted. The 
United States has never at any time used armed inter- 
vention to prevent the numerous South American revo- 
lutions. As has been her policy in all such cases, she 
has recognized the " de facto " government, that is the 
government that was actually in power. She has in 
general allowed the republics to the South to organize 
and reorganize without the interference of herself or 
others, for this attitude has been a sufficiently strong 
guarantee to keep( Europe out of South American 

While the Monroe Doctrine has kept European 
powers from meddling in affairs on this side of the 
Atlantic, it has not hindered the United States from 
acquiring Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico, and 
Porto Rico, nor from establishing protectorates over 
Cuba, the Republic of Panama, and certain Central 
American countries. In fact, the United States has 
been accused of having warned every one else off the 
American premises that she might herself have a free 

The question as to the justice of this charge is not a 
simple one; the United States undoubtedly is right in 
protecting her ow^n interests when those interests are 
threatened by the weaknesses or aggressions of other 
nations. The South American republics have not al- 
ways had stable governments that represent the will of 
the people. In the matter of the Panama Canal, it be- 


came of the utmost importance to the United States and 
to other nations that permanent, well-established con- 
trol be set up in order that the benefits of the great 
water-way might be guaranteed to the shipping of the 
whole world. That much every one must grant. How 
we acomplished our purposes may be a theme for dis- 
agreement, but it is to be hoped that the long-delayed 
treaty negotiated with Colombia in 1921 with its pay- 
ment of 25 million dollars, has settled the whole question 
of Panama and Colombia on a basis satisfactory to 
all the countries concerned. 

It is also to be noted that though the IMonroe Doc- 
trine declared that the United States would not take 
part in political affairs outside of its own American 
sphere, that statement of policy did not prevent the 
United States from acquiring the Philippine and 
Hawaiian Islands. Neither did it hinder the United 
States from acting with European powers in the affairs 
relating to the Open Door in China in 1900, nor in the 
Moroccan troubles concerning rival claims of France 
and Italy in Northern Africa in 1906. Yet in all these 
instances the intervention has, it seems sure, been for 
the common good of all concerned. The whole question 
of the Monroe Doctrine should be thoughtfully studied 
by all intelligent Americans as a guide to our future 
course in world affairs. 

The Monroe Doctrine, like the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, has been thought of by Americans with par- 
donable pride as a policy founded on good-will toward 
other nations. But, as in the case of the Declaration, 
its working-out has not always been carried forward 
in accordance with the ideals set forth. Its application 
has sometimes seemed to be directed by perhaps too 
large a degree of national self-interest. However, it 
is generally conceded that the United States, for her 


own sake and for the sake of the rest of the world, 
must hold and keep a position of controlling influence 
in American affairs, and while we feel that we must pro- 
tect our own " permanent interest " on this side of the 
water, this attitude is not out of keeping with an honest 
desire on the part of the United States to give its near 
neighbors to the South a chance to exercise government 
of their own choosing and for their own common good. 


The United States has always insisted, in theory at 
least, on " The Freedom of the Seas." There has been 
a good deal of discussion and many misunderstandings 
that have led to war over the meaning of this term. An 
old book entitled " Mare Liberum " defined " The Free- 
dom of the Seas " as meaning that the " air, running 
water and the sea are common to all." In the early 
days the Carthaginians forbade all the other nations 
to use the Mediterranean Sea. If a Greek sailor was 
captured in any part of the Mediterranean, he was at 
once dropped into its waters with the idea that he would 
never reach land. After the discovery of Amer- 
ica, Portugal and Spain contended so fiercely for the 
exclusive right to sail the high seas that Pope Alexander 
VI in order to settle the dispute drew a " Great Line of 
Demarcation " from north to south through the newly 
discovered world, giving Portugal all of the land east 
of the line and Spain all of the land west of it. 

In the eighteenth century, there developed a great 
deal of continental antagonism to the English sea- 
power, which had grown steadily since the little Eng- 
lish fleet under Howard, Hawkins, and Drake, had tri- 
umphed over the ponderous Spanish galleons of the 
" Invincible Armada." Holland, having become a 


great carrier-nation, claimed that " free ships make 
free goods," and objected to the Englisli practice of 
seizing and searching ships for English sailors and 
English goods. 

This doctrine was put into the Declaration of Paris 
in 1856. It abolished privateering, and provided that 
an enemy's goods, with the exception of actual war ma- 
terial, known as contraband, might be carried under a 
neutral flag. The question of what goods should be 
considered contraband was at first a comparatively 
simple one, but since the methods of warfare have 
changed, the list has become alarmingly inclusive — a 
harmless-looking bale of cotton having become con- 
traband, owing to its use in the making of high explo- 

The United States has always been the champion of 
the idea that private property, unless contraband, 
should be safe from capture on the high seas even in 
war times. During Jeff'erson's administration, trade in 
the Mediterranean was molested by the Barbary pirates, 
and the president ordered our men-of-war* to clear the 
w^aterway of these sea-robbers for the benefit of all the 
nations. The War of 1812 between the United States 
and Great Britain grew out of a practice directly in- 
volving our policy with reference to the " Freedom of 
the Seas," for British ships repeatedly overhauled the 
vessels of other nations for the purpose of taking sailors 
from them and forcing them into the British navy. 
The United States resented this practice and virtually 
put a stop to it by this war, although, strange to say, 
the treaty of peace which concluded the struggle made 
no mention whatever of freedom of the seas. 

In regard to the present meaning and application 
of the term " Freedom of the Seas," there is a wide 


difference of opinion among nations, particularly in 
time of Avar. Since the adoption of free trade, Great 
Britain has practised a liberal policy in her treatment 
of other nations which use her harbors and numerous 
ports of call. For the most part, she claims no ad- 
vantage over the ships that land at her docks in any 
port of the globe. The expenses of keeping up the 
landing facilities are borne almost entirely by Great 
Britain and equal tolls are charged on all ships, regard- 
less of nationality. 

In the winter of 1808-1809, Lord Grey, then the 
British foreign secretary, called at London a confer- 
ence of the leading maritime nations of the world for 
the purpose of fixing the principles of prize law, for 
the government of an international prize court. This 
conference drew up the Declaration of London, embody- 
ing a code of rules regulating the rights of neutrals and 
belligerents with respect to neutral commerce. 

While the Declaration of London did not entirely 
meet with the approval of the United States, it was 
considered a decided move in the way of securing greater 
justice and stability among the maritime nations of 
the world. Consequently, our government agreed to its 
terms. But when it came before the British Parlia- 
ment for ratification, it was rejected. Parliament stipu- 
lating that before signing a treaty which further lim- 
ited Great Britain's sea power, compensating limita- 
tions of land power should be agreed upon. Germany, 
of course, refused to limit her military strength and 
the matter was left unsettled at the time of the out- 
break of war in 1914. 

In the very first days of the Great War, Secretary 
of State Bryan, seeking to protect the interests of neu- 
tral nations, dispatched an identical note to the Powers 


at war, proposing that the code of rules for neutral 
nations embodied in the Declaration of London be ac- 
cepted by all nations for the duration of the war. But 
as the British Government feared to decrease the strik- 
ing power of the British Navy, the reply from that 
country was unsatisfactory and consequently Germany 
went about her preparations for ruthless submarine 

During the Great War, Great Britain still claimed 
as a war measure the right to search ships. She not 
only searched and detained ships in her ports pending 
the examination of their cargoes, but censored all the 
mail that they carried. This was extremely annoying 
to the citizens of the United States and occasioned a 
protest from the government, but as property only was 
involved and lives were never put in danger by the atti- 
tude of Great Britain the administration did not press 
the matter. Furthermore arbitration treaties made it 
possible to settle all cases of damage between the two 
countries after the cessation of hostilities. 

No arbitration treaties existed between the United 
States and the German Government by which questions 
might be settled when the war was over. At the be- 
ginning of the war Germany did not question the neu- 
tral rights of the United States, but when a contro- 
versy did arise, it was extremely serious. Germany 
resented the action of the United States in trading in 
munitions with the belligerent powers, and while she 
allowed our legal right to do so, she made her objec- 
tions on moral and humanitarian grounds. The 
United States, however, did not recognize the justice of 
her claims, and continued to allow shipping to pass un- 
hampered between her ports and any other ports that 
could be kept open to neutral navigation. 


Presently, the German Government announced that 
her submarines would begin ruthless warfare in vio- 
lation of all accepted principles of International Law. 
This intention of restricting freedom of the seas was 
made plain when the German ambassador on January 
31, 1917, informed the state department that American 
passenger steamers would be " permitted " to sail once a 
week provided they carried no contraband and provided 
each ship was marked as directed by the Imperial Ger- 
man Government. The specifications for marking were 
as follows : 

" The steamers are marked in the following way, 
which must be allowed to other vessels in American 
ports; on ship's hull, the superstructure, three vertical 
stripes, one meter wide, each to be painted alternately 
white and red and the stern, the American flag. Care 
should be taken that, during the dark, national flag and 
painted marks are easily recognizable from a distance, 
and that the boats are well lighted throughout." 

The question of Freedom of the Seas is a big one ; it 
includes the question of freedom of waterways and 
canals that reach into the hearts of countries ; it in- 
cludes the question of the neutralization of great inter- 
oceen waterways such as the Suez Canal, the Panama 
Canal, the Dardanelles, and Kiel Canal. The people 
of the world look forward eagerly to the time when a 
league of free peoples will so regulate the commerce of 
the world that the waterways of land and sea will be 
used for the benefit and happiness of all. 


Another line of foreign policy that the United States 
has pursued from the very beginning of the Republic has 
been the settling of moot questions by the " umpirage of 



reason rather than force " — that is, by arbitration. 
The first practical application of the principle in af- 
fairs of government took place when the thirteen states 
agreed to disarm and submit all their disputes to federal 
courts. Since that time, the United States has tried 

Pax- American Building, Washington, D. C. 

The oflScial home of the Pan-American Union, an organization 
of twenty-one American republics for the furtherance of com- 
merce, friendly intercourse and mutual understanding. 

— often vainly — to convert other states to her be- 
lief in the settlement of disputes between nations by a 
court of outside powers. 

Since 1724, the United States has had arbitration 
treaties with England. Between 1794 and 1872 ninety 
international disputes, in each of which the United 


States was a party, were settled by arbitration. The 
most noted case was that of the " Alabama Claims." 
The United States set up a claim against Great Britain 
for destruction of property by a ship that had been 
built in Great Britain and sold to the Confederacy dur- 
ing the War of Secession. The matter was given over 
to the arbitration court of neutral powers which met at 
Geneva, in Switzerland. An award of fifteen million 
dollars was made in favor of the United States, and 
Great Britain, though the amount seemed to her exor- 
bitant paid the sum named. In practically all cases 
that have gone before recognized international arbitra- 
tion courts the disputants have accepted the decisions 
arrived at. 

The question of arbitration has been a subject of dis- 
cussion at the Hague Conferences, where at each of the 
three meetings, the delegates from the United States 
tried earnestly to secure a general treaty of compul- 
sory arbitration. But Germany, while admitting the 
justice of the idea, coldly wet-blanketed the whole prop- 
osition because it included a mutual limitation of the 
army and navy of all nations which entered into the 
agreement. Her excuse was that she could not find a 
" formula " to express her views. 

Having failed in securing an international arbitra- 
tion treaty, the United States, notably under the lead- 
ership of Secretary Bryan, set to work to make separate 
arbitration treaties with the various nations. Before 
the end of 1914, thirty such agreements had been made, 
twenty of which had been ratified and proclaimed. 


The " Open Door " policy in dealing with backward 
countries was introduced into international relations by 


Secretary of State Hay in 1899. The term as first 
used referred to the equalization of opportunity in 
China to all foreign nations. Before 1899 Russia, 
Germany, and England had succeeded in establishing 
well defined " spheres of influence " in China and there 
was danger that all other powers would be entirely shut 
out. The United States, through Secretary Hay, in- 
sisted that all Chinese ports should be left open to all 
the powers of the world on equal terms. The powers 
that were occupying parts of China rather reluctantly 
agreed to the " so just and fair " proposal of the United 
States provided that all the other powers consented to 
the arrangement. Having received these provisional 
acceptances. Secretary Hay dispatched copies to each 
of the interested nations and thus established the Open 
Door policy which virtually blocked the threatened dis- 
memberment of China. The Open Door policy has been 
followed by the several nations in the wx^st coast of 
Africa and by France in Morocco. 


When the Great War startled all the world, the 
United States found it hard to break loose from her 
early traditions and enter into the European struggle. 
But when at last she did enter the world strife, she 
stood firmly on her traditional principles, allying her- 
self with no foreign power, but bending every effort to 
preserve the right to carry on and develop her chosen 
form of government. In the words of President Wil- 
son, she sought " to make the world safe for democ- 

The Great War being over, largely because of the 
entrance of the United States into the maelstrom of 
world affairs, it is not likely that our nation can remain 


aloof from the rest of the world. We must, in fact, 
take our stand among the nations and use our influence 
not merely in a negative but in a positive, constructive 
way. An American political economist recently laid 
down certain principles for the establishment of a 
definite and progressive foreign policy which may be 
briefly stated as follows : Our future foreign policy 
must first of all represent public sentiment, then it must 
be permanent and continuous, must be based on 
national honor and international justice, must respect 
the sovereignty of small nations, must honor the spirit 
as well as the letter of treaties, must merit the confi- 
dence of the South American Republics, must aim to 
avoid all permanent occupation of territory not our 
own and to reduce interference in the aff'airs of other 
nations to a minimum, and finally, while it must be al- 
truistic and generous, it must not neglect to promote 
and protect American investments abroad. 


While there's a grief to seek redress, 

Or balance to adjust, 
Where weighs our living manhood less 

Than Mammon's vilest dust, — 
While there's a right to need my vote, 

A wrong to sweep away, 
Up! clouted knee and ragged coat! 

A man's a man to-day. 

WJiitlier, The Poor Voter on Election Day. 

Citizenship is an all-important matter for Ameri- 
cans. In a Government like ours, " of the people, for 
the people, and by the people," the individuals must 
have clear ideas of the principles and nature of demo- 
cratic government, that they may have the " will to 
succeed " in carrying on the great experiment which 
this nation has undertaken. Citizens of the United 
States must consciously accept their citizenship with 
its rights and duties, and perform its obligations sol- 
emnly, with care to combine in just proportions their 
exercise of individual liberty and due consideration 
for the common good. 

That the American citizen may be a consciously ac- 
tive participant in the affairs of government, he must 
be able to answer to his own satisfaction the following 
questions, among others: — What is the source of citi- 
zenship? Does a citizen owe allegiance to the state in 
which he lives or to the United States? Who is the 

American citizen? What are his rights? What are 



his duties? How can he, a single person, have any in- 
fluence on the immense and extremely complicated 
machine that carries on the government? 


To begin with the first two questions : What is the 
source of citizenship, and to whom does the citizen owe 
allegiance? Citizenship has a dual source and citizens 
have a dual allegiance. On the one hand, the Federal 
Government is permitted by the Constitution of the 
United States to make laws in certain instances and is 
restricted in others, while the state, on the other hand, 
is permitted to make laws that are not prohibited by 
the Federal Constitution. The two documentary 
sources of an American's rights are, then, the Federal 
Constitution and the constitution of the state in which 
he lives. To get at a fairly clear understanding of the 
matter of citizenship and allegiance, this most impor- 
tant fact must be kept in mind constantly. 

The Federal Constitution sets forth a list of rights 
that the Federal Government cannot take away or deny 
— freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right 
to religious freedom, and others. The Constitution 
does not however say that a state cannot deny these 
rights to its citizens. Although the Federal Govern- 
ment was forbidden by the First Amendment to the 
Constitution to make any law respecting the establish- 
ment of religion or denying the free exercise thereof, at 
that very time in many of the states, the voting fran- 
chise, and in some cases, citizenship, were restricted by 
religious qualifications. As far as the Federal Consti- 
tution is concerned, any state is free to set up a state 
church if the citizens vote for it. 

The Federal Constitution also enumerates certain 


rights that the state cannot take away or deny. For 
example, the Fourteenth Amendment, after defining 
" citizenship " in the United States, says " no state shall 
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without 
due process of law, nor deny to any person within its 
jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." In the 
Fifteenth Amendment the right of a state to deny the 
vote to any one on account of race, color, or previous 
condition of servitude is expressly denied. 

Congress is empowered to make a uniform law for 
naturalization, but the states have control of the laws 
concerning suffrage. A foreigner coming to the United 
States from abroad will be naturalized under the same 
law whether he tarry in New York or proceed to North 
Dakota, but his right to vote will be governed by the 
law of the state in which he takes up his residence. 


"Who is an American Citizen?" This would seem 
a question that should have its answer in the Constitu- 
tion as drafted in 1787, but such is not the case. It 
was not until 1868 — nearly one hundred years after 
the adoption of the Constitution — that the term " citi- 
zen " was defined in our fundamental law. The Four- 
teenth Amendment, passed in 1868, says : " All per- 
sons born or naturalized in the United States and sub- 
ject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the 
United States and of the state wherein they reside." 

An American citizen is then any person who comes 
by law under the immediate jurisdiction of the laws of 
any one of the United States whether he is a man, a 
woman, or an infant — the last term denoting any per- 
son under legal age. All these members of the family of 
the American government are subject to its laws and are 


in turn protected by its laws. They are citizens 
whether they are voters or not, as distinguished from 
aliens — persons born in a foreign country who have 
neither been naturalized, nor, if women, married to citi- 
zens of the United States. 

Membership in the American family comes then by 
birth, by naturalization, and by marriage. If the par- 
ents of a child are American citizens, the child is born 
an American citizen ; a child born in the United States 
to alien parents permanently residing in the United 
States is an American citizen ; a child born to American 
parents residing temporarily in a foreign country is 
an American citizen. 


The process of naturalization is regulated by a gen- 
eral law of Congress under the sanction of the Consti- 
tution which says : " Congress shall have power to es- 
tablish an uniform rule of naturalization." The law 
regulating naturalization has varied from time to time. 
The present law excludes all polygamists, and those who 
do not believe in " organized government " ; it excludes 
all who cannot pass the literacy test which requires a 
small evidence of formal education. The Exclusion 
Act of 1882 prevents Chinese from becoming citizens, 
but the children born in the United States of Chinese 
parents are American citizens. 

The law also specifies that an alien cannot become 
a citizen of the United States until he has resided in 
the country for five years and has given a " notice of 
intention " to become a citizen at least two years be- 
fore he presents himself as a candidate for full citizen- 
ship. At the time of declaring his intention, the aspir- 
ant for citizenship is given his " first papers," which 


practically insure him all the rights of full citizenship. 
In most cases he can vote, in all cases his civil rights are 
guaranteed to him. He may even take up a homestead 
of one hundred sixty acres in a state where there is 
still " government land " and his wife may do likewise, 
although usually neither one can " prove up " on the 
homestead until the husband has become a citizen. 

Though the " first papers " may be made out merely 
before a clerk of court, the final papers must be issued 
by a judge. The candidate for full citizenship is re- 
quired to take the Oath of Allegiance to the United 
States, in which he " absolutely and entirely renounces 
all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, poten- 
tate, state, or sovereignty, and solemnly swears to sup- 
port the Constitution of the United States against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear faith and alle- 
giance to the same." 

When a foreigner becomes an American citizen, his 
wife and all of his minor children automatically become 
citizens also. If an American woman citizen marries 
an alien, she becomes at once an alien, while children 
born of the marriage in the United States are American 
citizens. If the American wife of an alien secures a 
divorce, she becomes again an American citizen. The 
alien, though not an American citizen, is guaranteed 
civil rights by courtesy. Thus in a sense, an alien is 
a favored guest who enjoys all the benefits the protec- 
tion of the law affords and assumes no responsibilities 
of citizenship. 

The fact that naturalization is regulated by the Fed- 
eral Government and that suffrage is regulated by the 
states has caused confusing complications and irregu- 
larities in regard to suffrage. While, under the pro- 
visions of the Constitution, five years' residence is re- 


quired before an alien can become a citizen of the 
United States, the forty-eight states differ widely in 
their regulations for granting suffrage to the foreign- 
born. Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, and other 
states grant suffrage after six months' residence to 
aliens who have " declared their intention " ; other 
states grant suffrage after two years' residence upon a 
like declaration; still others, notably New York, grant 
suffrage only to citizens. Thus if two brothers come 
to the United States on the same steamer, and one of 
them goes to Nebraska and the other to New York, the 
one who goes to Nebraska can vote in six months from 
the time that he lands, while the one remaining in New 
York must wait for five years. Such inequalities and 
irregularities in the rights of suffrage are matters that 
should have immediate federal remedy. 

A citizen's rights 
Civil Rights 

What are the American citizen's rights? An Ameri- 
can citizen, whether he be possessed of political rights 
or not, is guaranteed what are commonly called " civil " 
rights. A mere recital of these civil rights takes us 
back to the days of King Alfred. The civil rights of 
American citizens — the ordinary rights of everyday 
life that we scarcely know we possess until they are 
threatened — may be grouped under three heads : those 
relating to personal security, those relating to personal 
liberty, and those relating to property. 

The rights of personal security include police pro- 
tection, fire protection, protection of morals, protection 
against accidents from machinery — speeding automo- 
biles, and elevators, and other common sources of dan- 


ger to life and limb are included under this group — 
and protection against all sorts of avoidable accidents 
and removable danger. Among the rights of personal 
security are also freedom from the necessity of testify- 
ing against one's self, and freedom from the quartering 
of soldiers in private houses in times of peace. From 
the mere recital of this list it can be readily seen that 
the governmental machinery necessary to insure these 
rights to one hundred million citizens is of necessity 
ponderous and complicated, especially in a democratic 
government such as ours. 

Rights relating to personal liberty include freedom 
of religious worship, freedom of speech, of the press, 
and of assembly, tlie° right to petition the government 
for redress of grievances, the right to proper treat- 
ment by police and courts in case of arrest, the right 
to trial by jury, the right to a writ of habeas corpus — 
that is a speedy trial on a definite charge — the right 
to be secure in life and liberty except by due process of 
law, the right to a reasonable bail or fine, the right to 
indictment by a grand jury if accused of a serious 
offense, and the right to equal treatment with all other 
citizens before the law. 

Rights relating to property secure to the individual 
possession of personal property in money or land, pro- 
vide for a reasonable compensation if the property be 
taken over by the government, enjoin " due process of 
law " in the taking of property from an individual, and 
forbids the restriction of the use of property in such 
a way as to reduce or destroy its value to the owner. 

The civil rights enumerated under the three heads — 
personal security, personal liberty, and property rights 
— are guaranteed in the main to citizens of any state 
of the United States, always, of course, with the ex- 


ceptions in practice that accompany the administration 
of justice by human hands. One clause of Magna 
Charta expressly enjoins " We will sell to no man, we 
will not deny to any man, either justice or right." Yet 
no one will dare to say that the administration of jus- 
tice is always " evenhanded " to-day, though in the 
main it is true that in the United States there is a fairer 
measure of justice in the exercise and security of civil 
rights than in any other country in the world. 

The winning of the civil rights which the American 
citizen already possesses is by this time a familiar nar- 
rative ; trial by jury dates back to Henry II of Eng- 
land ; " habeas corpus " to Stuart days ; religious free- 
dom came only after centuries of hideous and unbeliev- 
able abuses. The protection from quartering of troops 
in private houses is scarcely appreciated in this age 
when the inviolable security of the American home is 

Besides these long-recognized, hard-w^on civil rights, 
there are others as yet not guaranteed that are pressing 
forward to enter the legal fold. Among these are the 
rights of children — to a home, to an education, to sep- 
arate courts, to separate places of correction, to a 
chance to develop individual talents ; the rights of work- 
ers — to a share in the excess profits that are produced 
by their labor, to a minimum wage, to form labor unions, 
to better conditions of labor and to higher pay, and to a 
reasonable daily period of labor and of rest ; the rights 
of the general public — to protection from industrial 
robbers and swindling stock-sellers and against hard- 
ships from profiteering and from strikes. In fact, an 
entire new code similar to our political and our legal 
code is in process of development, which, when it re- 
ceives the recognition that it demands will give the 


United States not only a claim to be known as a politi- 
cal democracy but as an industrial and economic democ- 
racy as well. 

Political Rights 

Political liberty came into practice because of the 
desire for civil liberty. It is important to remember 
that at first men wanted political liberty that they 
might be secure in their everyday lives; later they 
sought it because they wanted to manage their own 
affairs. Political liberty includes the right to vote for 
those who make and enforce the laws and also the right 
to hold office. In the United States, it had long been 
the general rule that all sound-minded male citizens who 
were twenty-one years or over were allowed to vote ; and 
the same privileges have been at last extended to women. 
Idiots, paupers, the insane, bigamists, polygamists, 
duelists, felons, and Indians not taxed, are denied the 
right of suffrage. In some states, sailors and soldiers 
are not allowed to vote because they are representa- 
tives, not of a state, but of the federal government. All 
states require a residence qualification varying from six 
months to two years; some states allow only citizens to 
vote ; a few states restrict the suffrage to tax-payers ; 
about one-third of the states have some kind of edu- 
cational test. In one way or another, almost all of the 
states of the South, by property qualifications, by edu- 
cational tests, or by other restrictions, exclude negroes 
from the polls. 

One must not, because of this formal enumeration, 
draw the conclusion that the government is a machine 
mechanically grinding out rights and privileges while 
the hungry citizens look up to be fed with them. Gov- 
ernment in the United States is in the long run simply 


a matter of public sentiment. The officers who make 
laws will eventually give the people who elect them what 
they want or they will go down to certain defeat when 
they present themselves for reelection. At the same 
time it is usually true in a republic like ours that no 
body of men who make and carry out the laws will give 

Medal Awarded to Henry Clay 

the citizens a better government than is actually de- 
manded. The people will get as good a government as 
the majority of them want. 


All this brings us directly to our next question, 
"What are the duties of an American Citizen?" 
" How can one single citizen have any influence on the 
immense and complicated system of government of the 
United States? " Henry Clay was but one single per- 
son; Lincoln was but one individual; Susan B. Anthonv 


was a lone woman; Booker T. Washington a nameless 
black man, yet all of these, single citizens as they were, 
have had a real influence on our immense and com- 
plicated system of government. Every individual, 
whether he holds office or not, whose judgment we value 
because he has demonstrated that his opinions are fair- 
minded and his conclusions and actions based on what 
he considers the common good, is an important factor 
in the upbuilding of the nation. 

Considered seriously and honestly, the duty involved 
in being an American is no sinecure. The American 
citizen cannot sit back comfortably under the paternal 
care of a despot or a despotic oligarchy and let the 
v-^orld go hang so long as he is safe and warm ; the 
liberties that he enjoys are not given by a king to his 
subjects; they come from the people themselves be- 
cause in our country the people are the source of 
authority. The general level of the citizens of a coun- 
try where the people are the sovereign power is seen 
in the laws which the representatives make and enforce. 
So it comes that the individuals in a democratic gov- 
ernment are all-important because the source of power 
lies in them. As water cannot rise above its own level, 
so the moral life of the state cannot rise above its own 

A good citizen and a good man come very near to 
being the same thing and the practice of fair dealing 
comes very near to making a good man. The man 
who is able to give a good account of his stewardship 
to his state has become well-practiced in being a good 
man, for the good citizen always remembers that while 
freedom may and should be used to his own profit and 
enjoyment, it is subject to the equal rights of other 



The virtue of good citizenship is bred in the home, 
in the school, in the community, where the individual 
readily learns that the acts of one person may prove 
harmful to others ; that selfishness, as the ruling and 
only source of action, is bad for everybody concerned. 
The good citizen must go farther than that, for he must 
learn the art of quietly sitting down by himself to con- 
template what he really believes and desires as an 
American citizen. In other words, he must learn to 
think out for himself the things he believes to be right 
and fair to others as to himself. He may well, also, 
take counsel with his fellow men. The time has passed 
when the formation of clubs to influence public opinion 
was considered a meddlesome interference on the part of 
private persons. Open discussion has become a neces- 
sity in American life, where useful political action must 
be guided by thought. In the exchange of ideas 
through friendly or heated informal debate issues be- 
come familiar and men arc made to think. The citizen 
who is entitled to express his stand in public affairs by 
his vote will not neglect the duty of going to the polls, 
for at the polls he performs his chief act of sovereignty. 
In the United States a stage has been reached where the 
voter is conscious that he can lay shaping hands on the 
processes of politics, and that, unless he is as willing to 
vote in time of peace as he is willing to fight in time of 
war, he virtually resigns his title to be considered one of 
the sovereign people. Right voting needs not a back- 
ground of the learning of the schools ; a decent sense of 
fair play directed by an honest mind is all the training 
required for the man before whom the issue is plain. 

If the United States is to progress toward a greater 


democracy, voters must train themselves to be intelli- 
gent as to issues and interested in measures, rather than 
merely prejudiced in favor of the men standing for 
election. The people must respect their liberties if 
they hope to preserve them, for eternal vigilance is in- 
deed the price of safety. A democracy without the re- 
straints imposed by an intelligent citizenry, may become 
the worst kind of a tyranny. 

It must not be forgotten that American Citizenship 
is not a thing of the body ; it is a thing of spirit, of il- 
lumination, of coming out into the sun. With gener- 
ous and imaginative peoples, the process of becoming 
an American is completed almost in a day. For, from 
the beginning, America has said to all comers, " Come, 
to this land ; you need have no fear. You are wel- 
come; take your place at the family board. If you 
choose, remain a guest; if you wish to have a hand in 
regulating the affairs of the family, you may become a 
member of this household. In time you may even sit 
at the national council table, at which but one place is 
denied you, the place at the head." 

The invitation has been accepted, eagerly, hopefully, 
passionately. They have come in motley throngs from 
all the nations with heads uplifted, eagerly looking to- 
ward the land of hope. And America took them all in 
kindly, openly, tolerantly, and. It must be added, care- 
lessly. In a few years they became Americans, and in 
a single generation their children were filling positions 
in every station. 

The American citizen, be he but one generation from 
the soil of Europe, or a proud son of the American Rev- 
olution, is permitted to become what he dares and wills ; 
he follows the gleam that leads him ; it may be the light 
of stars ; it may be the electric glare of fame or ambi- 


tion ; it may be the yellow flame of a tallow dip that 
leads to the miser's treasure-house. But, being an 
American, whatever the impelling motive, the way is 
open to his ultimate desire. 


This homogeneous mixture of races and peoples goes 
to make up the United States of America, a new, dis- 
tinctively-marked member of the family of nations. 
In no other country in the world has such an assimila- 
tion and such a development taken place. The Ameri- 
can keeps the characteristics that marked the colonist 
— the open-minded intelligence, the freedom of will, the 
generosity of hand, the practical common-sense, the 
eagerness and willingness to participate in affairs of 
government, the ideal of justice and fair play, the dy- 
namic force which delights in accomplishment. 

These are signs that mark the real American, for it 
must be remembered that not all who dwell in the 
United States may be truly called Americans. There 
are persons living in America, some of them foreigners 
by birth, some whose forefathers date back to the May- 
flower, who arc not Americans. They are spiritual 
aliens, who consider America a place for the exploita- 
tion of their own petty or stupendous schemes of per- 
sonal selfishness. They take all America will give them 
or will allow them to take and cram it into their own 
pockets, or they play upon the helpless ignorance and 
inherited prejudices of well-meaning Americans, and, by 
insidious and crooked means, grasp and hold political 
power by w^hich they corrupt the laws and gain eco- 
nomic dominion over others. 

For the United States of America has not yet reached 
the summit of perfection in political life, in social life, 


or in economic life. No American citizen who uses his 
talent or his ballot for his own excessive aggrandize- 
ment can be considered a true American ; no law can 
make him one. He is a most subtle foe of the country 
to which he owes allegiance. 


The Great War is over but the test of American citi- 
zenry has only just begun. In action, on the field of 
battle, on the sea, in the air, there is glory and honor 
and fame. The plain, steady, everyday duty of being 
an American has little of alluring beauty or high ro- 
mance. Yet it means life for an ideal. America must 
have ready at a moment's notice a great, compact, well- 
organized, fluent-minded army of citizens. Day and 
night, year in, year out, the true American must wear 
the uniform of his citizenship as the soldier in Uncle 
Sam's army wears the khaki while he is enrolled in the 
lists of fighting men. He can never lay it aside, for 
in a democracy, war against inherent evils never ends. 
He must wear the insignia of his allegiance and his 
servitude till he dies. 

As a soldier is proud to keep himself in exact form, 
his uniform neat, his face smooth and clean, his hands 
immaculate, his shoes shining, his cap at the precise 
angle required, his gun polished and ready for use, so 
must the soldier of the great army of citizenship step 
forward with mind open, with high courage, with kind 
heart, with clear conscience, with wide vision, with look 
ahead. He must keep himself constantly in the train- 
ing that will fit him for performing the functions of 

He must learn to execute the duties placed upon him 


by his allegiance to his country so efficiently and 
promptly that there will be time to spare for pursuing 
his own particular business and avocation, never for- 
getting that the American ideal includes a dual respon- 
sibility, of freedom for the individual to please himself 
and a scrupulous attention to a consideration of the 
common good of all men — brothers and equals before 

It is not an easy nor negligible thing to be a good 
American, but he who wills to stand in the ranks of true 
American citizenship fights on the winning side. The 
good American will take the high way and follow his 
ideal by being a worthy citizen of the United States, 
and just as truly a useful citizen of the world at large. 


No nation can live without vision, and no vision will exalt a 
nation except the vision of real liberty and real justice and purity 
of conduct. Woodrow Wilson. 

The avowed purpose of the United States in entering 
the Great War was " to make the world safe for de- 
mocracy." The war was won on that issue, which 
seemed clear to every one after the United States went 
in. The Allies acclaimed the ideals thus set up and in 
no uncertain words agreed with these aims of the 
United States when she threw her millions of young 
men and her billions of wealth against the Central 
Powers. Indeed, myriads of printed statements of 
those ideals fluttered down from air-planes upon the 
armies of the Germans and Austrians to make it evi- 
dent to the rank and file that the Americans and Allies 
were fighting for tlic cause of the common man, not 
only of their own countries, but of all countries. 

But when the war was over, it began to appear that 
the meaning of the inspiring battle-cry that had 
weakened the morale of the enemy and carried the 
Allies to victory was not, after all, so obvious and so 
simple as men had thought it to be. What had been 
perfectly plain to all sensible persons in the ardor of 
the fight for a great cause, seemed to admit of unwar- 
rantable exceptions and undreamcd-of interpretations 

after the militarv victory had been won. 




As a consequence, since the close of the war, people 
have been living in a state of mental confusion as to 
exactly what is meant by " democracy." In the 
United States, we stoutly maintain that we must cling 
to " American ideals," if we wish to keep our great 
nation safe from the tyranny of wealth on the one hand 
and the inroads of revolution on the other. But what 
is the meaning of these magic words? Before we can 

Presidext WiLSoisr axd His Cabinet, 1913 

apply it in any constructive way we must undertake to 
define " democracy " or " the American ideal of govern- 
ment " in terms that the plain people can understand 
and accept. 


We may begin at once by stating that the American 
ideal of government is government by the people ; in 
other words, it is the democratic ideal. Americans 


have become so used to the statement that the people 
are the source of government that they scarcely realize 
how unusual and daring a thing it was in Jefferson's 
time to set up a government on that startling princi- 
ple; in fact, few Americans know that ours was the 
first country that, from its very beginning, openly pro- 
claimed the people as the source of government. Yet 
even in 1776 the idea of the people as the source of 
government was not a new one. Such philosophy of 
government had existed since the days of the " demo- 
cratic " Greek city states, five hundred years before 
the Christian era. Plato stated in his " Republic," 
that " a sense of the general good supports the state, 
self-seeking disintegrates it." " Hence," he went on, 
" it is useful to point out the general good to the in- 
dividual." Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, said that 
" political government is a government of free men 
and equals working together for the common happiness 
of life under a government which is administered for 
the benefit of all." But the democracy of Greece was 
not a democracy at all in the American sense, for in 
Greece, " demos," the people, meant but a small privi- 
leged class, which lived on the labors of the great mass 
of the population, made up of the slaves. In classical 
Athens, the most enlightened city of its time, there were 
more than four hundred thousand slaves and not more 
than twenty-one thousand freemen. 

In the days of the Roman Republic, all Romans, 
plebeians as well as patricians, were citizens. The com- 
mon people had their " tribunes " to speak for them 
and popular consent was necessary to make an election 
valid. Rome did not remain a city-state, but even when 
all Italy was united under Rome's dominion, popular 
government was carried on by having all the people 


come together in one place to express the public will. 
Later, when Rome became the possessor of the world, 
the moneyed aristocracy fattened on the loot of far- 
away provinces, and her system of popular government 
gave way to the rule of the Roman emperors, who caused 
their statues to be worshipped as gods. Because the 
Romans did not discover how to govern by representa- 
tion, Rome could not be a world republic but became 
the Roman Empire. 


The roots of the ideals that underlie the American 
government, are not to be found in Greece, or Rome. 
The democratic ideal had its beginnings in the religious 
doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God. 
That ideal coupled with the idea that man is responsible 
to God for all his actions is the true core of the demo- 
cratic ideal. 

During the Middle Ages, the Church carried out this 
ancient doctrine into a very real democracy. Her of- 
fices were open to all who showed intellectual promise — 
peasant and son of nobleman alike became candidates 
for the priesthood. In their effort to work out a 
complete system of philosophy, the great schoolmen of 
the period did not neglect the philosophy of government. 
St. Augustine (353-430) defined a political society as 
essentially a multitude united hy consent and commu- 
nity of interest. St. Thomas Acquinas (1224-1274), 
the greatest theologian of the Middle Ages, insisted 
that civil power owed its actual existence to human 
right and that the essential note of sovereignty, the 
right to make laws, was in the hands of the people. 
He also defended prevailing customs as law. He held 
that for all good governments, the people have a share 


in the sovereignty and that the best form of govern- 
ment is one in which the people elect their rulers among 
themselves. Following the doctrines of the Church, the 
early Christian kings claimed no divine right to their 
kingly powers ; they subscribed themselves Kings by the 
Grace of God and neither they nor their people con- 
sidered the King ruler by divine appointment. 

In the long and painful struggle for political freedom 
in England, the philosophy of the Church was on the 
side of sovereignty of the people. The teaching of the 
sclioolmcn was of immense value, as it set forth the 
lawful relation between the King and people, and, by 
its logic, made short work of the royal claims to divine 
power. The begging friars, always the supporters of 
freedom, taught the people something of the dignity 
of labor and the frailty of kings, who were after all 
but men. 

But although it is true that there existed a written 
theory of government, the struggle toward democracy 
was scarcely a conscious one. The barons of England 
strove with King John, not for a principle, but to gain 
their own advantage. The mass of the people were 
content with their civil rights, which presently came to 
be " the rights of Englishmen." After the Reforma- 
tion, the assumption by the Kings of headship of the 
Church having been accepted, it was but a step to set 
up the further claim of divine right to kingship. 

In spite of the divine right practice of the Tudor 
monarchs, English philosophical writers continued to 
set forth the theory of government as founded on the 
consent of the governed. One of these, Richard 
Hooker (1553-1600), stated that all public govern- 
ment of whatever kind arises from " deliberate advice, 
consultation, and composition " and that " the sover- 


eigntj rests ultimately with the people who have agreed 
upon the law of the * common wealth ' as the basis of 
union." Another writer, Thomas Hobbes (1588- 
1679) restated Hooker's view; and still later John 
Loeke (1632-1703) made sovereignty consist of the 
rights which every man has over his own actions^ rights 
which he gives over to the government as they are 
needed for the common welfare, 


Thus we see that up to the time of the American 
Revolution, there were scattered writings dealing with 
the subject although there was no accepted, well-de- 
fined theory of government by the consent of the gov- 
erned. Since the colonial lawyers were well-read men, 
we may be certain that when they were seeking a sure 
ground on which to base the colonists' claim of the right 
to rule themselves, they searched diligently in Hooker, 
in Hobbes, and in Locke, as well as in Rousseau, their 
brilliant French contemporary, who, in '^ The Social 
Contract," had set forth a forceful case for the rule of 
the people as a basis of just government. 

In 1776 George Mason wrote into the State Consti- 
tution of Virginia a Bill of Rights — the first document 
of its kind in history. It stated that all men are equally 
free and have certain inherent rights ; that all power 
is vested in the people; that government ought to be in- 
stituted for the common good; and that if it is found 
to be inadequate, the people have a right to reform, 
alter, or abolish it; and finally that no free government 
can he preserved except by frequently going back to 
fundamental principles. When, a few weeks later, these 
ideas were put into the Declaration of Independence, 
they were heard " round the world," and are still heard^ 



because they find an echo in the hearts of men every- 

However imperfect has been the expression of the 
will of the majority, there can be no gainsaying the fact 
that the American ideal has always been the democratic 

ideal, the source of 
government having 
been from the first 
clearly understood as 
being from the peo- 
ple. The Declara- 
tion of Independence 
proclaimed to the 
world that " govern- 
ments are instituted 
among men, deriving 
their just powers 
from the consent of 
the governed.'* The 
Constitution of the 
United States an- 
nounces itself as an 
instrument of govern- 
ment in these words : 
"IF^, the people of 
the United States, 
... in order to pro- 
mote the general wel- 
fare ... do ordain 
and establish " the form of government under which we 

According to Chief Justice Marshall, " The Gov- 
ernment proceeds directly from the people; it is or- 
dained and established in the name of the people; its 

John Marshall 

Chief Justice of the United States 
for thirty-five years (1800-1835). 
He established the power of the Su- 
preme Court over the legislative 
branch of our Government. 

" He found the constitution paper, 
and made it povt^er; he found it a 
skeleton, and clothed it with flesh and 


powers are granted by them and are exercised directly 
on them and for their benefit ; it is a government of 
all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents and 
acts for all." The final and complete statement of the 
ideal of American democracy was given by Abraham 
Lincoln in his " government of the people, for the 
people, and by the people " which is in truth the heart 
of the American ideal of government. 

But Lincoln did not believe that a mere majority 
was the true source of sovereignty. He recognized the 
fact than an unrestrained absolute majority might be- 
come a despotic form of absolutism and sweep all indi- 
vidual rights before it. He gave a true definition of 
the sovereignty of the people when he said: "A major- 
ity held in restraint by constitutional checks and limita- 
tions, and easily changing with deliberate changes of 
popular opinion, is the only true sovereign of the 


But when we have said all this, we have only defined 
American ideals in general terms ; to get at the real 
heart of the matter we must explain those general terms 
in meanings that will apply to the individual American, 
who is an integral part of the American people. As ap- 
plied to the individual, it will be found that, in the 
United States, democratic government takes on two 
main aspects — freedom of the individual, and consid- 
eration for the " general zvelfare,'' that ancient and 
honorable " common good " that Plato wrote about 
more than two thousand years ago. 

Individual Freedom and the Common Good 
The American ideal may be stated in some such words 
as these : Man has been giv^n intelligence and responsi- 


bilitj in order that be may play a part in some vast 
design of the Creator of the Universe. In the world in 
which he lives are countless other beings like himself, all 
equal to him in the sight of God. According to the 
American ideal, the individual is free to strike out on 
any path he may choose, provided always that his 
course does not interfere wiHi like freedom of others. 
In the past this idea of individual freedom has been 
the aspect of the American ideal that has most often 
caught the imagination, while the common good has 
been to a large degree neglected. When the two aspects 
of the American ideal are equally and thus properly 
regarded, the American ideal is the embodiment of fair 
play for each person who goes to help make up the body 
politic. It involves what is variously termed a " square 
deal," " sportsmanship," "^ common decency," " social 
justice," or whatever else one may call the fundamental 
rule of conduct which bids us to do as we would be done 



In order that the American ideal of personal initia- 
tive and equal opportunity for all may be lived out in 
security, the government of the United States has been 
set up, for, according to the American ideal of democ- 
racy, the state exists solely as an instrument to show the 
win of the people. The kernel of the American ideal 
of life and government is, therefore, a fair chance for 
the individual, a mutual concern for the common good, 
and a machinery of government existing for the single 
purpose of securing these ends. From this as a center 
of belief have sprung all true American ideals. 



When we speak of American ideals, we mean the 
ideals of the great majority of the citizens of the United 
States, for, though representatives in the government 
are selected by means of political parties and may as 
individuals hold opinions at great variance with the 
American ideal, the average of opinion, made up from 
the beliefs of all classes and conditions of society, is apt 
to approach very close to justice, for the simple reason 
that, in the main, the principles of right-living have 
always been common to the great mass of the people. 

These common ideals of right thinking are familiar 
enough : they are the belief in God ; in the dignity of 
man ; in the sacredness of life ; in the inviolability of 
marriage; in the sanctity of the home; in the obliga- 
tion of promises; in the compelling power of duty; in 
kindliness to neighbors ; and in the accountability of 
the individual to his own conscience alone. These be- 
liefs, held by good men from the earliest ages, were 
embodied in the government in the United States of 
America, the first government in the world to be set up 
on the definite foundation of the brotherhood of man. 

While the government of the United States has been 
scrupulously careful to leave its citizens free in mat- 
ters of religion, the Constitution specifically prohibiting 
the establishment of a state church, the people of the 
United States have always been believers in the Provi- 
dence of God. The signers of the Declaration of In- 
dependence appealed " to the Supreme Judge of the 
World for the rectitude of our intentions " ; Lincoln 
in the Emancipation Proclamation invoked " the gra- 
cious favor of Almighty God " upon the step he was 


taking; President Wilson closed his war message to 
Congress by calling on God to sustain our arms. The 
coin of the United States bears the motto, " In God 
We Trust " ; our National legislature is opened with 
prayer ; our statute book bears witness that the " Thou 
shalt not " of the tables of Moses is still the basis of 
our common law. 

Moreover, the practice of religious observance has 
been a marked characteristic of American life. It has 
marched step by step with the practice of government 
by the people. The dusty traveler, rattling along 
over the Minnesota and Dakota prairies, is struck by 
certain outstanding features of the many small towns 
he passes through. Two dominating structures strike 
his eye, the church and the town hall or court house. 
These two, the church and the state, divorced by mutual 
consent, dwell here in harmony. With the ever pres- 
ent school-house, the town hall and the church are the 
most insistent and obvious features of American com- 
munity life. 


From these springs come the various practices and 
policies that show themselves in the conduct of our 
government and of our common life — the ideal of 
individual freedom to worship, to speak, to assemble, 
to petition for redress of grievances, to be secure in 
the home, to own property, to trial by jury, to be 
safe from unjust arrest; the ideal of fair play under- 
lying our foreign policy and our practice of arbitra- 
tion ; our belief in the inviolability of treaties and our 
ideal of neighborliness. 

In living out these ideals the United States has not 
relied on good will alone ; for from the very first it has 


taken a position of self-respecting independence and 
magnificent courage that has enabled it, undaunted, to 
face unknown dangers and to pass through each crisis 
with no loss of honor and respect. Along with this in- 
dependence has gone that most remarkable capacity for 
finding new ways to put things through. 

That the United States has lived by ideals is evi- 
denced on all hands. She has protected the rights of 
the individual as far as statutes can protect such rights. 
Civil rights are secured to all citizens under the law. 
If these sacred rights have ever been violated, it has 
been because of the imperfections of the human beings 
appointed to carry out the laws. If new individual 
rights have been developed that are as yet unprotected, 
it is because adjustments of law have not kept pace 
with the rapid changes that have taken place in our 
social order. 

We have striven to carry out our ideals in a spirit 
of friendliness. The American nation has never hesi- 
tated to include the whole world when answering the 
question, " Who, then, is thy neighbor." For as Ameri- 
cans, above all other things, believe that every man is 
entitled to direct his own life, so do they believe that 
every nation must have a like privilege, provided it 
does not interfere with other peoples or threaten the 
peace of the world. 

Because the builders of the American ideal were 
reasonable and logical, the rule of fair play has been 
carried out, with few exceptions, in our conduct toward 
foreign nations. We have been friendly neighbors, un- 
willing to mix in family quarrels but ready and anxious 
to help, once quiet was restored in national households. 
No matter how frequent the revolutions in the coun- 
tries to the south of us, we have forborne to interfere. 


even though often sorely tried; and when after long 
provocation, we entered the Great War, we announced 
to the world that we sought no material advantages of 
any kind and in the settlement after the great struggle 
was over our nation sought no plunder. 

In carrying out the policy of the Monroe Doctrine, 
the United States has shown an independence and sure- 
ness of ground that has enabled her, more than 
once, to gain the desired ends without striking a blow. 
Twice by a determined gesture she protected Venezuela. 
She went to war for Cuba, and then kept faith with her 
own ideal by giving that rich and tempting island back 
to its own people, after the Spanish-American War. 

Our sincere desire to dwell in neighborly friendliness 
with the rest of the world is eloquently and finally 
proved by the unmarked, unguarded, far-flung line 
stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that indi- 
cates the boundary between the Dominion of Canada 
and the United States of America. Nowhere in the his- 
tory of the world is there nobler testimony of the need- 
Icssness of a standing army than is that silent border 
where no bristling fortress lifts its head, and where no 
watchful army is stationed. 

The sincerity of our belief in peaceful arbitration 
has been made clear in numberless instances where we 
have willingly accepted judgments even when they have 
not fallen in our favor. Our scores of arbitration 
treaties with foreign powers are the initial covenants 
of international peace. That we look upon them as 
inviolable, witness the fact that the United States openly 
retracted a law giving commercial advantages to our 
own coastwise trade through the Panama Canal, be- 
cause it was not in harmony with a treaty made with 
England years before. 


It may bo said that in the United States an ideal 
progress exists — a progress that comes by slow, sure 
movement toward greater and greater justice. Gen- 
uine reform has usually followed sure and safe consti- 
tutional lines without any great upheavals of the social 
and economic order. In the one instance in our his- 
tory where wrongs would not yield to any force less than 
civil war, it should be remembered that the clouds were 
gathering for fifty years, during all of which time men 
sought earnestly some better way to progress than 
through the conflict that finally came. 

Merely to think of what the American ideal is, and 
then to consider wherein we have failed to carry it out 
in practice is startling enough. No one will pretend 
that the United States has always realized the high 
ambition of the majority of her people. There are 
many instances which show that we have often woe- 
fully fallen short of our high purposes. 

We have the Mexican War to be ashamed of, although 
the result of that war probably has been for the com- 
mon good in the long run. We have not yet justified 
ourselves to the Philippines, nor altogether in the mat- 
ter of the Panama Canal and Colombia, but we shall 
eventually right any wrongs that can be righted if we 
remain true to our best desires. Surely we have not 
failed so unmistakably as to forfeit our claim to ideal- 
ism. If we have sometimes fallen short, it has been 
partly because our representatives have failed us and 
partly because we have not organized a method of al- 
lowing the will of the people to be more readily ex- 

A rapidly increasing number of people are coming to 
see that the common good must never be forgotten even 
in the free enjoyment of the rights of the indi%ddual. 


It is becoming plain to all that if the United States is to 
continue to build for democracy, the inspiring idea of 
personal freedom must be constantly accompanied by 
the sobering idea of the duty of responsibility for the 
common good. The two principles are inseparable in 
a democratic society; they are its very foundation 
stones. Failure to recognize the duty of safe-guarding 
the common good has led to the strange result that we 
have in the United States an autocratic economic sys- 
tem operating under a democratic government. In the 
enthusiasm of pushing themselves ahead, numbers of men 
have become so absorbed in promoting " business pros- 
perity rather than human welfare " that there has 
grown up a false and baseless aristocracy of wealth and 
influence. On the other hand in opposition to this 
class there is a growing danger of an aristocracy of 
labor which will prove hardly less selfish or less harm- 
ful, should it lose sight of the general welfare of all 
the people. 


These observations lead us to the conclusion that the 
old ideals must never be lost sight of and that new and 
higher standards must be set up if we are to grasp the 
full significance of the term " government of the people." 
We shall find on examination that the citizens of the 
United States too often lack definite ideals with refer- 
ence to personal and national efficiency, thrift, conser- 
vation, industrial cooperation, governmental responsi- 
bility, and economic justice. We have up to this time 
been in the careless, open-handed, wasteful stage of 
bounteous youth; we must now, for the sake of our 
national household and for the sake of the rest of the 


world, develop ideals which will correct extravagant 
errors, spendthrift prodigality, and economic outlawrv. 
As a nation and as individuals we have thrown away 
time and money and opportunity recklessly as if each 
wasted moment and each squandered dollar and each 
lost chance did not add to the world's burden of work 
and poverty and need. 

Such problems as the negro question, illiteracy, 
disease prevention, and many others must be solved be- 
fore we can be satisfied with the American Ideal as it 
works out in practice. Some years ago the game of 
football was played in a manner that was rough and 
dangerous. Frequent serious accidents were glossed 
over until at last public sentiment demanded protection 
for the boys that played this game. The rules of the 
game of living must be changed so that there will not be 
so many men and women deprived of the actual necessi- 
ties for health}^ citizenship. It is easy to see that the 
Americans who will help in this great work must be en- 
lightened as to the unfairness of present conditions in 
order that they may meet the need intelligently. 

To-day the real problem of America is the develop- 
ing and educating of the common will in the spirit of 
the American ideal, and the making of an instrument of 
government through which the real wishes of the Ameri- 
can people may be expressed. When America, it may 
be through the generation now at school, comes to full 
realization of her ideals, the state itself will have a 
conscience, an honor, a sacred word. Then will all the 
workings of the government be open, and plain to all 
men ; then will come the possibility of moral life be- 
tween states, so that a just League of Nations may be 
set up as an expression of the common will of mankind. 

Signs are not wanting that the future holds the. 


realization of American ideals of national and inter- 
national morality. The world has heard Jove's Thun- 
der on the Right, and the first great notes of an inter- 
national concert of peace have found echoes through- 
out all lands. The heart of mankind has re- 
sponded, as it always does, to the expression of high 
ideals. From the days when Stephen Langton 
framed Magna Charta and thus gave Englishmen a 
bulwark of liberty, down through the centuries until 
the sad-hearted Lincoln uttered the briefest and most 
inclusive formula of popular government, the words of 
men gifted with extraordinary power of language have 
caught the attention and fired the hearts of all people. 
Humanity has moved forward by rallying to their noble 
battle cries of progress. It matters not that the real- 
ization of the heart's desire of a people seldom comes 
at the moment they are spoken, the golden sentences 
remain and continue to rouse the spirit of men until the 
very words make themselves come true. 


Not long after the entrance of the United States 
into the Great War there was sent ringing over the 
world, in language clearly understood by all people, 
an enumeration of the basic principles upon which 
might be founded a true community of free peoples 
who, by mutual consent, should agree that " material 
force of arms should give way to moral right." Again 
and again were " American principles and American 
policies " held up before the eyes of the world, and to 
each re-statement of these high ideals, the war-tried 
nations assented. No battles fought during the 
Great War had greater force than the words that were 
spoken by the President of the United States. The Al- 


lied powers of Europe agreed to and re-echoed their 
lofty sentiments and the whole world clung to them 
until the power of militarism had been battered down 
by force of arms backed by the " principles and policies 
of forward-looking men and women everywhere, of every 
modern nation, of every enlightened community." 

It is true that when the war was over, there was a 
coming down from the high days of struggle and the 
hope of a just but merciful settlement of the world's 
affairs was not realized. But the great ideals held 
up to and approved by the whole world during the great 
conflict will never be erased from the hearts of men who 
love freedom and justice, will never die because " they 
are the principles of mankind and must prevail." 

We shall say them over and over again, " the de- 
struction of arbitrary powers that can singly threaten 
the peace of the world," " openness of treaties openly 
arrived at," " no private international understand- 
ings," " diplomacy frankly conducted in the public 
view," "settlement of all questions between nations upon 
the basis of free acceptance by the people immediately 
concerned," " absolute freedom of navigation of the 
seas," " the removal of all economic barriers," " reduc- 
tion of armaments," " territorial settlements for the 
benefit of the populations concerned," " the consent of 
all nations to be governed in their conduct toward each 
other by the same principles of honor and respect for 
the common law of civilized society that govern indi- 
vidual citizens," " the self-determination of small na- 
tions," and that great, compact summary of the future 
internationaj code, " a reign of law, based upon the 
consent of the governed, and sustained by the organized 
opinion of mankind." 

It is idealistic, let us grant. But lack of idealism 


is what the world is suffering from in these troubled 
days ; more idealism must go into our private and pub- 
lic dealings if the American ideal is to live. For just 
as truly as this country was frankly founded on ideal- 
ism, it cannot continue without constant support from 
the same source. We must return, as George Mason 
said we must, to get a renewal from our foundation 
principles. If the words that were spoken during the 
terrible days of the Great War made Americans willing 
to send the best blood of the nation to be spilled in the 
cause that was set up as our gage for battle, they must 
have had the force of truth ; and if they were true then, 
the}^ are true now. If Americans will it, they can real- 
ize these democratic principles, not only in the govern- 
ment of their own country, but in the government of the 
world. This last, not by force of arms, but by force 
of example, for if Americans are true to the ideals on 
which their country was founded, we shall move with 
slow steadfastness toward the realization of an all-per- 
vasive love for justice that will make the whole world 
safe for a democracy that shall mean the " common 
good " of all mankind. 



They have rights who dare defend them. 


The great trust now descends to new hands. Let us apply our- 
selves to that which is presented to us, as our appropriate object. 
We can win no laurels in a war for Independence. Earlier and 
worthier hands have gathered them all. Nor are there places for 
us by the side of Solon, of Alfred, and other founders of states. 
Our Fathers have filled them. But there remains to us a great 
duty of defense and preservation; and there is opened to us, also 
a noble pursuit, to which the spirit of the times strongly invites 
us. Our proper business is improvement. Let our age be an 
age of improvement. In the day of peace let us advance the arts 
of peace and the works of peace. Let us develop the resources of 
the land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote 
all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and 
generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. 
Daniel Webster (Bunker Hill Address, 1825.) 

The patriotism of the people of the United States, 
like patriotism the whole world over, is centered about 
the country called home. Americans love the very land 
in which they dwell — the great, shapeless cities, the 
genial towns and rural villages, the pleasant country- 
sides and farm-lands, the swift rivers and broad lakes, 
the mountains, the sea-swept coasts and wind-swept 
plains. The son of New Hampshire has a special af- 
fection for the hills that shut him in as the son of 
Dakota takes inspiration from the open plains that 
stretch about him on every side. Besides their love 

for the soil on which they are born, the citizens of many 



countries include a love for their king as part of their 
patriotism. They look upon their hereditary monarchs 
as symbols of nationhood. Americans, on the other 
hand, have no special veneration for their President, 
because his term of office is too short and he is too near 
the people to be revered on any grounds except his own 
personal worth. Our political party system has even 
made the chief executive a tempting target at which 
to cast bouquets one day or stones the next. He can- 
not assume a place too high above the people who elect 
him ; but must remain within easy reach of their variant 

But though they have no living symbol of nationality, 
Americans have developed a fictitious personification of 
the nation made up of qualities that they admire most 
and love best. This very real personage, alert, good- 
natured, yet sternly just, this national hero and patron, 
is aff*ectionately called, " Uncle Sam." Into this crea- 
tion of patriotic impulses has gone something of all 
America's national heroes, a trace of Patrick Henry, a 
large portion of George Washington, much of Jeffer- 
son's belief in common man, the vigor of Andrew Jack- 
son, and a strong flavor of the rugged righteousness 
and patient humanity of Abraham Lincoln. 

Much of the patriotism of America is spontaneous, 
natural, and unconscious. Its strength and compel- 
ling force was clearly shown during the testing time of 
the Great War when Americans went about that dread- 
ful business almost as a matter of course. Thousands 
of the best young men of America did not wait to 
" think out " a line of action, but fell into rank at the 
command of the Government and bore like veterans the 
routine of camp and field. 

They rallied under the Stars and Stripes, these young 


Americans, and promptly two millions of them crossed 
the sea to shell-torn France. They hurried to the bat- 
tle-front, many with little training in the ways of war, 
and there they fought with such valor and so intensely 
that victory was won speedily. And when the Great 
War was over, the tide of ships that took these young 
men to Europe came back with them to America, where 
they laid aside the khaki badge of special service to 
Uncle Sam to resume the duties of citizenship found in 
the ordinary walks of life, almost as if they had not 
taken part in the most terrific conflict the world had 
ever seen. 

But life for these young men cannot and should not 
be the same as it was before the Great War. They 
fought for an ideal for which thousands gave their lives. 
Henceforth it behooves those who returned and those 
who remained '^ safe home " to advance the principles for 
which so much was sacrificed, by upholding an active, 
intelligent, conscientious patriotism in their own living 
and insisting upon nothing less in the lives of others. 

For American patriots of this and coming genera- 
tions must know exactly what is meant by Americanism; 
they must help to make it possible to readily register 
the will of the people ; they must insist upon the educa- 
tion of the growing youth in the duties of citizenship ; 
they must wipe out illiteracy; they must develop good 
Americans out of the immigrants that have already 
come and that will come to this country ; and above all, 
they must make it possible for every one to attain what 
Americans have come to consider a decent living. 
These things must be done even at the cost of personal 
sacrifices in time and money and effort. In a word, 
the people of the United States must make for them- 
selves a definition of patriotism that is more specific 


than mere boasting and inspires more action than the 
display of Fourth of July fireworks. Their promise of 
allegiance must spring from their very hearts and affect 
their conduct toward their fellowmen if America, in the 
best sense, is to be " the land of the free and the home 
of the brave." 

At the close of the Great War, many American citi- 
zens find themselves very much confused between 
two very aggressive and active small groups whose 
members cannot be considered as believers in the Amer- 
ican ideal, which, as all Americans should know, sets 
as its object the greatest freedom of individual develop- 
ment consistent with the general good. On the one 
hand are those who hold that nothing short of a com- 
plete economic and social Revolution will cure the ills 
of society. The short-cut to that desired end they 
conceive as being accomplished by the Bolshevist forces 
in Russia. They seem to be anxious to induce the peo- 
ple of the United States to adopt the form of govern- 
ment that has controlled Russia since the Great War, 
and is proving of very doubtful benefit to the people as a 
whole, because the men in control are animated more by 
a determination to put their political and eco- 
nomic theories into practice than by a real considera- 
tion for the common good. On the other hand, like a 
stone wall, are the capitalistic interests, composed of 
groups of individuals who often seem to know less of 
patriotism than do the social revolutionists. In fact, 
big business, which should be a bulwark of patriotism 
because it is made up largely of educated men who have 
enjoyed unusual opportunity, is often a chief source of 
the economic discontent that stirs men to propose un- 
tried and doubtful theories of government on a world 
scale. There must be a real awakening on both sides, 


for not until Capital and Labor are willing to consider 
each other as necessarily co-workers in the great tasks 
of industry will the American ideal be reaHzed. 

The good American citizen should examine carefully 
the motives and methods of the forces that make for 
either of these social and economic extremes, remem- 
bering that while there are elements of strength in both, 
the extremes of society are apt to be its weakest points. 
He should ever keep in mind the fact that the motive 
power on the one hand is too often selfishness filled 
with hatred, while on the other, it is selfishness coupled 
with a disregard for the rights of others. 

He will find that in the world upheaval of the Great 
War, forces have been let loose that threaten to swamp 
civilization in the dark and hopeless flood of economic 
and political revolution. Many of the leaders in ad- 
vocating revolution are men who have suffered political, 
economic, and perhaps religious oppression in Europe. 
They have been hungry and cold and repressed. They 
came to this country filled with the hatred of their op- 
pressors. Here they see only another form of autoc- 
racy when wealth is piled up in the hands of a few, and 
hundreds of thousands are receiving less than a decent 
wage. Having no in-bred love for the United States, 
they seek to work out in this country the Revolution 
that they have set up in their minds as the only way 
by which justice can be secured. These leaders have 
rallied to their standard many other dissatisfied per- 
sons both foreign and native-born. 

They do not realize that the great progress that has 
been made in America has come slowly and surely as the 
result of education and by the force of public opinion. 
They are not impressed with the fact that in the United 
States when a majority of the people are ready to 


demand a change, it will come without any extraordi- 
nary upheaval of society. In fact, the will of the ma- 
jority means nothing to this " inspired " minority of 
advanced thinkers. They expect to have a new world 
within their own lifetime. The true revolutionist in his 
zeal to establish " mass " rights by the " Revolution " 
is willing to wreck the present order, that there may 
come into being a great international brotherhood of 
laborers who shall rule the world. 

The plain American who sincerely wishes to do his 
share for the common good will need to walk carefully, 
for he will often find that revolutionary leaders are 
men who have, or think they have, high ideals of the 
brotherhood of man, and are willing to make great per- 
sonal sacrifices to bring about the ends they are striv- 
ing for — better conditions of living for the masses. 
This cause should, in itself, bring to its standard the 
great, the wise, and the good, from the ranks of both 
labor and capital. But as our American scrutinizes 
the leaders of revolution closely, as he talks with them 
of economic conditions, of government, of life, and free- 
dom, he will see plainly that they base their hope of 
reform on material prosperity alone and deny the needs 
of the spirit. He will find that many of those who 
are drawn to the standard of revolt are immature per- 
sons, talkative and egotistical youths, who, with rash 
hands, are eager to tear down the towering fabric of 
democracy, reared through the ages with toilsome pa- 
tience. They have no substitute to offer that even pre- 
tends to be for the common good of all the people. Few 
of these ardent revolutionists can claim any jot of the 
title of reformer. They are filled with hate of the 
" capitalistic class " and long for the day when these 


so-called oppressors of the workers will be stripped of 
their wealth and power. 

The American who looks back as well as forward 
will not be led astray by false prophets ; for while 
most of the thinking people in the world to-day believe 
that great economic changes are due to take place, in 
order that greater justice and more nearly equal oppor- 
tunity may be open to all, they hope to bring about 
reforms by lawful methods. Among the social revolu- 
tionists they see no advocate of permanent reform, 
though they may recognize that his clamorous protest 
is in itself a help toward a better day. 

The true reformer takes into account the good which 
is already established. He sees life in its relation to 
the past and its probable effect on the future. He 
loves things as they are and will not use physical force 
except as a last resort. He is willing to spend all his 
days in perfecting his philosophy and he is willing to 
die for his faith. He can afford to wait ; it is the 
cause that is most precious to him, and he knows that 
if the cause be just, nothing in the world can hinder 
its ultimate realization. 

After the open-eyed, young American has considered 
well the beliefs of the revolutionist and studied his pro- 
posed methods of reform, he will look at the other ex- 
treme where he will find conditions equally puzzling. 
For while the revolutionist makes open profession of 
his ideals, he will hear in the ranks of reaction loud- 
voiced protestations of patriotic zeal. He may even 
have to tear away the folds of the American flag before 
he comes at the truth that selfish greed, clothed in rich 
garments, considers neither the welfare of the nation 
nor the happiness of men. He will, if he be wise, ob- 


serve the operations of big business that fall within his 
own observation ; he will read books dealing with the 
industrial world ; he will study labor conditions, labor- 
unions, and labor statistics ; he will watch associations 
of business men — bankers, wholesalers, shippers, and 
all who have large control. He will note with serious 
questioning the business interests that are at work 
in the halls of state and national government. 

Though the American student will get much of his 
information by reading, he should not be so simple as to 
believe all that he sees in print. He must recognize 
that the newspaper he reads does not depend for its 
support upon the few pennies he pays for it, but upon 
the advertisers, who may withdraw their patronage if its 
columns " knock " big business. He will, with this in 
mind, read discriminatingly, knowing that the streams 
from which plain people drink their daily draught of 
news are sometimes contaminated at the source. He 
must not be entirely surprised at this, for makers of 
newspapers must live, and not until the readers are 
willing to bear a good portion of the cost of publishing 
the news, not until the readers of newspapers are intel- 
ligent enough to make the publisher know that what is 
printed is going out to a keen-minded and thoroughly 
awakened public, not until the many good newspapers 
are appreciated and supported as they should be, may 
we be certain of finding in every newspaper first-hand 
information, unbiased by the interests of the selfish. 
Until then, every American must discriminate between 
the bad and the good, the unessential and the important, 
sifting and weighing and finally selecting the things 
that are worth while. For when all is said, the news- 
papers are the textbooks of the times and in their pages 


appear, often unheralded, golden words that will live 
when the chaff of current writing has blown away. 

Between the two extremes, the revolutionists and the 
interests, are the great mass of American people, for 
the most part comfortable, well-fed, intelligent, well- 
meaning, but extremely individualistic and frequently 
not alive to the questions of the day. At heart these 
decent, honest, fair-minded folk desire right and jus- 
tice for all men. They have been indifferent because 
they have been uninformed and very busy with their 
own affairs. Even when glimmerings of the truth have 
reached them, the averseness to change that is natural 
in all people, great or small, has made them look with 
suspicion on new plans. The chances are that, with- 
out really informing themselves on the merits of the 
questions in dispute, they begin to call names and excite 
prejudices. Real reform is often sadly hampered by 
this tendency of well-intentioned citizens. 

To-day any one who wishes to help social and eco- 
nomic progress and who dares to express doubts of the 
present economic system of the United States is apt to 
be called a " socialist," an " anarchist," an " I. W. 
W.," or a " Bolshevik." On the other hand, if he is 
steadfast in his desire to exercise even a moderate degree 
of patience and hesitation before casting his lot with 
measures advocated by extreme revolutionists, he is 
referred to by them as " reactionary," as " conserv- 
ative," or — depth of benighted hopelessness — • as 
" bourgeoisie." 

No wonder that the plain American is confused and 
doubtful of the course he should pursue. Yet it is with 
this great, heretofore politically inactive mass of fair- 
minded, sane-thinking Americans and with their sons 


and daughters who are now at school that the well- 
being of the future lies; for when the idea of economic 
justice has fully taken hold of them, the machinery for 
carrying out the purposes of the American people will 
be set in motion. There are signs that such an awak- 
ening is at hand. Since the days of the war, senators 
and representatives at Washington have been " hearing 
from home " ; the mails are flooded with inquiries as to 
the reasons for the stand individual legislators are tak- 
ing on important measures. Representatives are find- 
ing out that they merely " represent " the sovereign 
people, that they, in themselves, are not the sovereign 

This method of questioning is a very excellent one 
for Americans to use in testing measures and persons 
who stand for them. Every representative of the peo- 
ple should be able and willing sooner or later to ex- 
plain his reasons for advocating measures. This does 
not mean at all that representatives must be slaves 
of their constituents. A representative at the scene 
of action should know better than his constituents all 
angles of any question that comes up for legislation 
and so may not hold the same viewpoint as the unin- 
formed people who elected him. But he must be will- 
ing to enlighten them, or if that is not permissible, 
either to let time prove him right, or expect to lose his 
public office. The American, properly inquisitive, 
should seek to know who are a candidate's backers, 
where his campaign funds come from, who his relatives- 
in-law may be, what his past record seems to reveal, 
what stripe of newspaper and political periodical sup- 
ports him; in short, whether he appears to be working 
for himself or for the common good. Thus, without 
much excitement on the part of the voter, the burden 


of proving that he is indeed fit to wear the robe of 
office can be placed directly upon the man who asks 
permission to represent his district. 

When the time comes that every voter is awake to the 
necessity of safe-guarding this precious " general 
good," there will be set up in the United States the 
truly " responsible ministry " that the framers of the 
Constitution failed to provide for. Then will repre- 
sentative government express the will of the people and 
not the will of an obscure and selfish influence. The 
most potent agency to secure honest official conduct is 
the jealous eye of the people, whose good opinion is per- 
haps the most prized reward that an official can receive. 
But in keeping a sharp eye on officials, the American 
citizen should not forget the obligations of justice and 
fair-mindedness toward his elected representatives. It 
is easy to cast slurs. Constituents should exercise pa- 
tience and tolerance, should try to understand the 
causes back of the acts of their representatives, who 
are often misunderstood because not given a chance to 
explain their votes. 

The process of change in forms of government should 
be conscious and deliberate; we should see clearly the 
new need and set about a reconstruction only after due 
and sane consideration. The bringing on of that good 
time will be no over-night accomplishment ; rather w411 
it be a slow, steady progress set in motion by the gen- 
eral responsibility which Americans as individuals will 
assume for the conduct of the affairs of the United 
States of America. Then will be created a new ideal of 
patriotism in which, not fighting or dying, but living 
for one's country will be recognized as the patriot's 
first duty. 

The forces of revolution that threaten America on 


the one hand cannot be driven out by blows, bad names, 
or forcible suppression. They must be overcome by 
logical argument and by pointing out a better way. 
Ideas may be changed, but they cannot be killed. Both 
Lincoln and Jefferson said that error is not dangerous 
when truth is left free to combat it. The power of 
wealth that looms on the other hand must be met by 
keen intelligence and cool determination backed by 
innumerable hosts armed with the ballot. 

That universal education has been a dominating 
American ideal, is a most significantly hopeful fact. 
An educated people will never allow itself to be indefi- 
nitely hoodwinked. To-day American education must 
take a new direction. Americans must read widely in 
history, in biography, in politics, in the social sciences. 
They must be able to discuss problems on their own 
merits, not on a selfish, personal basis. There must be 
a determined effort to organize brain power, that the 
great body of people may be able to get ideas by 
means of free, fair, and unheated discussion. Though 
there will probably never be absolute agreement of 
political parties, the people of a country must be in 
essential agreement, if there is to be any approach to a 
community of will. 

The thinking young American will soon learn that in 
politics, nothing absolutely new can be safely at- 
tempted; he will realize that the sensible method of 
progress is by careful experiment ; no nation can leap 
precipitately into a heaven on earth while human nature 
retains its imperfections. But while he may recognize 
the unwisdom of following revolutionary paths, there is 
nothing in the world to hinder the making of great 
changes, nothing to prevent reforms that may bring 
greater justice to all men, nor the enactment of laws 



that will place restraining limits upon illegitimate busi- 


Americans must remember that it is not any single 
person's fault that such unfair conditions in the world 
of capital and labor have come about. But it will be 
the American's fault if such conditions are not made 
better, else why all this education at such great ex- 
pense. Boys and girls must learn for themselves that 
success is not always measured by dollars. If the 
young people now in school are merely waiting until 
they grow up to get into the money-grabbing game, if 
success to them means merely a large bank account 
and more money to spend, we might as well shut up our 
schools, give up our belief in the " common good," and 
join a mad procession headed toward chaos. 

When boys grow to manhood they must carry on 
the game of life after the manner in which they are 
taught to play on the playground. In the code of boy- 
hood's honor, the bulhs the tight-fisted fellow, the brag- 
gart, and the crooked sport have no standing. Some- 
thing of this spirit of intolerant exclusion must become 
the ground-work of business morality. The man who 
refuses to play fair in business must be shut out from 
the good fellowship of right-thinking men. Americans 
must change the present business code ; there must be 
a new reaction to fair play, personal obligations, sacred- 
ness of contract, and honesty in all transactions ; there 
must be a real belief and practice in the rule of live 
and let live, the " do as you would be done by " of 
childhood ; a new reading of the commandment, " Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 

Nor need Americans fear to examine carefully Amer- 
ican institutions or even to criticize our fundamental 
law. It must be remembered that the Constitution of 
the United States, though it is truly a great document 
of human liberty, is not a sacred writing, is not an in- 


and absorbing accomplishment than piling up useless 
millions. Jane Addams and Jacob Riis have proved 
to this generation that there is no need to complain of a 
lack of opportunity for adventures in the absorbing 
cause of humanity. 

In the city of New Orleans stands the first statue 
erected in the United States to the memory of a woman. 
The name on the pedestal is simply " Margaret." Thus 
the citizens of New Orleans have shown their gratitude 
to the Orphans' Friend, Margaret Haughery, an unlet- 
tered working woman, who was an angel of mercy to 
spired and unalterable bible of political liberty. It 
was drawn up by men who were after all, but men. 
They did the best they could to make a form of govern- 
ment that would fit into the conditions that existed at 
the time. During the first hundred years following 
1789, it was not customary to criticize the Constitution 
in the outspoken manner of to-day, but criticism is no 
longer considered treason ; for every one knows that with 
the changes that have come in our nation, changes in 
the machinery of government must be made to meet new 

Nothing is impossible in the United States, a country 
which specializes in doing things " that can't be done." 
The growing generation scarcely realizes its possi- 
bilities. If the pupils in one class in one high school 
in any big American city should make up their minds 
that when they came to be men and women they would 
make their city beautiful, without slums, without low 
dens of vice, they could do it, though half the number 
might give up the enterprise before reaching manhood 
or womanhood. And it would be a far more interesting 
black and white alike. For every loaf of bread sold 
from her bake-shop, she gave another to the poor. 


Although she achieved no nation-wide fame, thousands 
in her own city have called her blessed. 

The list of duties the performance of which go to 
make up what is called patriotism, is already long, and 
as yet nothing has been said about physical education, 
which until recently has been almost totally neglected. 
It need only be said that nearly one-third of the young 
men examined for service in the army were pronounced 
" unfit." It should be but a poor sort of patriotism 
that would fail to change this condition now that it 
has been recognized. Nor has one word been said of 
Americanizing the foreigner. No need of that here, 
for if the American can be led to Americanize himself, 
the foreigner will readily follow in his footsteps. 

Above all, the American should insist that his belief 
in God find expression in art — literature, music, paint- 
ing, sculpture, architecture — and in life itself, in order 
that his spiritual nature may play a greater part in 
his patriotism. If we really believe in God, let us not 
be shame-faced about voicing and living our belief. 
A trust in the Creator has at least the honorable pre- 
cedent of the ages ; the practice of the laws of God in 
our daily lives has always made for better conditions of 
living and should not now be pushed out of considera- 
tion as a strengthening influence in the life of the 

The American of the period following the Great War 
can no longer remain a self-satisfied provincial; he 
must look out over the whole round world and try to 
understand the other people of this planet. He must 
recognize that there exists not only Great Britain and 
Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Scandinavia, and 
Switzerland, but that there is also a Spain, Portugal, 
and Italy, a Czecho-Slovakia, a Poland, a Serbia; that 


there is a new, unknown Russia, that the fragments of 
the old Russia have resolved themselves into a Fin- 
land, an Ukrainian Republic, an Esthonia, and a Lith- 
uania ; he must travel on, in his mind at least, to Asia 
wuth its unawakened China and its thoroughly alert 
Japan, its India, its Mesapotamia, its Persia and its 
Turkey ; he must reckon with Australia and the islands 
that neighbor — the East Indies, New Guinea, and New 
Zealand ; he must look over Africa, that great colonial 
prize at which the European nations are decorously 
stretching out velvet-clothed iron hands ; he must come 
round to his home again and view the countries to the 
south of us, the South American republics, the West 
Indies, and unhappy Mexico. A vast outlook and one 
to fill nights and days with study for the American 
patriot who undertakes the project of becoming a cos- 

The signers at Philadelphia set the United States of 
America a big task when they decided to start out 
on the principle that governments derive their just 
powers from the consent of the governed. Unless the 
American people of the present day wish to throw this 
doctrine overboard — and there seems to be no such 
desire — they are in honor bound to show to the hopeful 
new republics which have been carved out of the em- 
pires of Europe, that they are willing to undertake as 
their " fortunate duty," the task of proving that a gov- 
ernment by the people is possible. 

Being a patriot is a man's and a woman's job and 
calls for the same qualities of patience, forethought, 
and self-control that are required in making a worth- 
while success anywhere, at any time. Above all things, 
Americans need to stand off and take a look at them- 
selves. They need to ask themselves whether they really 


believe in democracy or are merely in love with the fine 
phrases in which its ideal have been expressed. They 
need to press the question of social justice home to 
themselves, to stand before their own eyes and find out 
whether they are willing to advocate fair play to all 
men or merely to themselves and a few favored others. 
They must find out whether, having fought to make the 
world safe for democracy, they know what it is to be 
democratic; they must follow the logic of truth and 
know themselves for what they are, not for what they 

The young people who are in school to-day are stand- 
ing on the top of the world. They are heirs to all 
that has come down through the ages ; in these years 
the whole world is thrilling with great ideals, and is sick 
with longing to have the ideals come true. The gen- 
eration now in school has a mighty task before it. To 
them the torch has been thrown. They will not dare to 
break faith, these men and women of to-morrow, who 
must not only work for the common good, but who 
must carry on. For security against national, polit- 
ical, and economic disaster, through carelessness, in- 
difference, and ignorance, will be assured to the future 
only by the training of the oncoming hosts of the new 
generations in the principles of right living, justice, and 
fair play. In this way only can be maintained a per- 
manent, standing army of citizens, the fighting men of 
which have been physically, mentally, and spiritually^ 
prepared to do their share of the world's work. 


In Congress, July Jf., 1776 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united 
States of America 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes neces- 
sary for one people to dissolve the political bands which 
have connected them with another, and to assume among 
the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station 
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle 
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires 
that they should declare the causes which impel them to 
the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure 
these rights. Governments are instituted among Men, de- 
riving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
Tliat whenever any Form of Government becomes destruc- 
tive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its 
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers 
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect 
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dic- 
tate that Governments long established should not be 
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all 
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to 
suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves 
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing 



invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them 
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, 
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards 
for their future security. — Such has been the patient suf- 
ferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity 
which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Gov- 
ernment. The history of the present King of Great 
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, 
all having in direct object the establishment of an abso- 
lute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts 
be submitted to a candid world. 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome 
and necessary for the public good. 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of im- 
mediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their 
operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so 
suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommoda- 
tion of large districts of people, unless those people would 
relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, 
a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants 

He has called together legislative bodies at places un- 
usual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of 
their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing 
them into compliance with his measures. 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for 
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights 
of the people. 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, 
to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative 
Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the 
People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in 
the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from 
without, and convulsions within. 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these 
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Natural- 


ization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage 
their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new- 
Appropriations of Lands. 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by re- 
fusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for 
the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment 
of their salaries. 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent 
hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat 
out their substance. 

He has kept among us, in times of peace. Standing 
Armies without the Consent of our legislature. 

He has affected to render the Military independent of 
and superior to the Civil Power. 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdic- 
tion foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our 
laws ; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legisla- 
tion : 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us : 

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment 
for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabit- 
ants of these States: 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: 

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent: 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial 
by Jury: 

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pre- 
tended offences : 

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a 
neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary 
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render 
it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the 
same absolute rule into these Colonies: 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing oux most 


valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of 
our Governments: 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring 
themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all 
cases whatsoever. 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out 
of his Protection and waging War against us. 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt 
our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign 
mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and 
tyranny, already begun witlj circumstances of Cruelty & 
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and 
totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on 
the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to be- 
come the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or 
to fall themselves by their Hands. 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and 
has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our 
frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule 
of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, 
sexes and conditions. 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned 
for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated 
Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A 
Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which 
may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free 

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Brittish 
brethren. We have warned them from time to time of at- 
tempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable 
jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the cir- 
cumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We 
have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and 
we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred 
to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably inter- 


rupt our connections and correspondence. They too have 
been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. 
We must^ therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which de- 
nounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the 
rest of mankind. Enemies in War^ in Peace Friends. 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States 
of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to 
the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our 
intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good 
People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare. 
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be 
Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from 
all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political 
connection between them and the State of Great Britain, 
is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and 
Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, 
conclude Peace, contract Alliances,, establish Commerce, 
and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent 
States may of right do. And for the support of this 
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of 
Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our 
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, 

John Hancock. 

New Hampshire — Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, 
Matthew Thornton. 

Massachusetts Bay — Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. 
Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry. 

Rhode Island — Step. Hopkins, William Ellery. 

Connecticut — Roger Sherman, Sam'el Huntington, 
Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott. 

New York — Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frans. 
Lewis, Lewis Morris. 

New Jersey — Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, 
Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark. 

Pennsylvania — Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. 


Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, 
Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross. 

Delaware — C^sar Rodney, Geo. Read, Tho. M'Kean. 

Maryland — Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, 
Charles Carroll of Carrollton. 

Virginia — George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Th. 
Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr., Francis 
LiGHTFooT Lee, Carter Braxton. 

North Carolina — Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John 

South Carolina — Edward Rutledge, Thos. Heyward, 
Junr., Thomas Lynch, Junr., Arthur Middleton. 

Georgia — Button Gwinnett^ Lyman Hall^ Geo. 




We the People of the United States, in Order to form a 
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote 
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Lib- 
enty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and es- 
tablish this Constitution for the United States of 

Article I. 

Section 1. 

1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested 
in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
Senate and House of Representatives. 

Section 2. 

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members chosen every second Year by the People of the 
several States, and the Electors in each State shall have 
the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most 
numerous Branch of the State Legislature. 

2. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not 
have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been 
seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall 
not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which 
he shall be chosen. 

3. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned 
among the several States which may be included within this 
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall 
be determined by adding to the whole Number of free 
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of 
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all 



other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made 
within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress 
of the United States, and within every subsequent Term 
of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for 
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least 
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be 
made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to 
chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six. 
New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Mary- 
land six, Virginia ten. North Carolina five, South Carolina 
five, and Georgia three. 

4. When vacancies happen in the Representation from 
any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs 
of Election to fill such Vacancies. 

5. The House of Representatives shall chuse their 
Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power 
of Impeachment. 

Section 3. 

1. The Senate of the United States sliall be composed of 
two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature 
thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one 

2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Conse- 
quence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally 
as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators 
of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the 
second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the 
fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration 
of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every 
second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or 
otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any 
State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appoint- 
ments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which 
shall then fill such Vacancies. 


3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have at- 
tained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years 
a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when 
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall 
be chosen, 

4. The Vice President of the United States shall be 
President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they 
be equally divided. 

5. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also 
a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice Presi- 
dent, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of 
the United States. 

6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Im- 
peachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall 
be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the 
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: 
And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence 
of two thirds of the Members present. 

7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend 
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to 
hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under 
the United States: but the Party convicted shall neverthe- 
less be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment 
and Punishment, according to Law. 

Section 4. 

1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections 
for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in 
each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress 
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, 
except as to the Places of chusing Senators. 

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every 
Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in 
December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different 


Section 5. 

1. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Re- 
turns and Qualifications of its own MemberS;, and a 
Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; 
but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and 
may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent 
Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as 
each House may provide. 

2. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceed- 
ings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, 
with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. 

S. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, 
and from time to time publish the same, excepting such 
Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the 
Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any 
question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, 
be entered on the Journal. 

4. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, 
without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than 
three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the 
two Houses shall be sitting. 

Section 6. 

1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a 
Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, 
and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They 
shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of 
the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attend- 
ance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in go- 
ing to and returning from the same; and for any Speech 
or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned 
in any other Place. 

2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time 
for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office 
under the Authority of the United States, which shall 


have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have 
been encreased during such time; and no Person holding 
any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of 
either House during his Continuance in Office. 

Section 7. 

1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the 
House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or 
concur with Amendments as on other Bills. 

2. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a 
Law, be presented to the President of the United States; 
If he approve he shall sign it; but if not he shall return it, 
with his Objections to that House in which it shall have 
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their 
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Re- 
consideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass 
the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to 
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, 
and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall be- 
come a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both 
Houses shall be determined b}^ Yeas and Nays, and the 
Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall 
be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. 
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within 
ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been 
presented to him, the Same shall be a law, in like Manner 
as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Ad- 
journment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not 
be a Law. 

3. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Con- 
currence of the Senate and House of Representatives may 
be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall 
be presented to the President of the United States; and 
before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by 
him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by 


two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the 
Case of a bill. 

Section 8. 

The Congress shall have Power 

1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Ex- 
cises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common De- 
fence and general Welfare of the United States; but all 
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout 
the United States ; 

2. To borrow Money on the Credit of the United States; 

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and 
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; 

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and 
uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout 
the United States; 

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of 
foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and 
Measures ; 

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the 
Securities and current Coin of the United States; 

7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads; 

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, 
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors 
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Dis- 
coveries ; 

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme 

10. To define and Punish Piracies and Felonies com- 
mitted on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of 
Nations ; 

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Re- 
prisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and 
Water ; 

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation 


of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two 

13. To provide and maintain a Navy; 

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation 
of the land and naval Forces; 

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute 
the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel 
Invasions ; 

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, 
the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may 
be employed in the Service of the United States, reserv- 
ing to the States respectively, the Appointment of the 
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia accord- 
ing to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatso- 
ever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) 
as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance 
of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the 
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places 
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State 
in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, 
Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards, and other needful Build- 
ings ; — And 

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, 
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the 
Government of the United States, or in any Department 
or Officer thereof. 

Section 9. 

1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any 
of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, 
shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year 
one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or Duty 
may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten 
dollars for each Person. 


2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not 
be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Inva- 
sion the public Safety may require it. 

3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be 

4. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, un- 
less in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein be- 
fore directed to be taken. 

5. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported 
from any State. 

6. No Preference- shall be given by any Regulation of 
Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those 
of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, 
be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. 

7. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a 
regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Ex- 
penditures of all public Money shall be published from 
time to time. 

8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United 
States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or 
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Con- 
gress, accept of any present. Emolument, Office, or Title, 
of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign 

Section 10. 

1. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or 
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin 
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold 
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass 
any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impair- 
ing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of 

2. No State shall, withouV, the Consent of the Congress, 
lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except 


what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's in- 
spection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and 
Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports_, shall 
be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and 
all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Con- 
troul of the Congress. 

3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay 
any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in 
time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with 
another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, 
unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as 
will not admit of Delay. 

Article II. 

Section 1. 

1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President 
of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office 
during the Term of four Years, and, together with the 
Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as 

2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the 
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, 
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representa- 
tives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: 
but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an 
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be 
appointed an Elector. 

3. The electors shall meet in their respective States, and 
vote by ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall 
not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. 
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, 
and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they 
shall sign and certify, and transmit scaled to the Seat 
of the Government of the United States, directed to the 
President of the Senate. The President of the Senate 
shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Repre- 


sentatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall 
then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number 
of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a 
Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; 
and if there be more than one who have such Majority 
and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of 
Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of 
them for President; and if no person have a Majority, 
then from the five highest on the List the said House shall 
in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the 
President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Repre- 
sentation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for 
this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from 
two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States 
shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the 
Choice of the President, the person having the greatest 
Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice Presi- 
dent. But if there should remain two or more who have 
equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot 
the Vice-President.^ 

4. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the 
Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their 
Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United 

5. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen 
of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this 
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; 
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall 
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been 
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. 

6. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, 
or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge 
the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall 
devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by 
Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, 
or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, de- 
claring what Officer shall then act as President, and such 


Officer shall act accordinglvj until tbe Disability be re- 
moved, or a President shall be elected. 

7. The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his 
Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 
nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have 
been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period 
any other Emolument from the United States, or any of 

8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he 
shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do 
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute 
the Office of President of the United States, and will to 
the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States." 

Section 2. , 

1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the 
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia 
of the several States, when called into the actual Service 
of the United States ; he may require the Opinion, in writ- 
ing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive De- 
partments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their 
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Re- 
prieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, 
except in Cases of Impeachment. 

2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and 
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two 
thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nomi- 
nate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers 
and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other 
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not 
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be estab- 
lished by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the 
Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, 
in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the 
Heads of Departments. 


3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacan- 
cies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, 
by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End 
of their next Session. 

Section 3. 

1. He shall from time to time give to the Congress In- 
formation of the State of the Union, and recommend to 
their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge neces- 
sary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, 
convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Dis- 
agreement between them, with Respect to the Time of 
Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he 
shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other 
public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be 
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers, 
of the United States. 

Section 4. 

1. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers 
of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Im- 
peachment for, and Conviction of. Treason, Bribery, or 
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Article III. 

Section 1. 

1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be 
vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts 
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and estab- 
lish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, 
shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, 
at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensa- 
tion, which shall not be diminished during their Coij^Jinu- 
ance in Office. 


Section. 2. 

1. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law 
and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of 
the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be 
made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Am- 
bassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls ; — to all 
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Con- 
troversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — 
to Controversies between two or more States ; — between 
a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens 
of different States, — between Citizens of the same State 
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and be- 
tween a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, 
Citizens or Subjects. 

2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public 
Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall 
be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Juris- 
diction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the 
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as 
to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such 
Regulations as the Congress shall make. 

3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeach- 
ment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in 
the State where the said Crimes shall have been com- 
mitted; but when not committed within any State, the 
Trial sliall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may 
by Law have directed. 

Section 3. 

1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only 
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their 
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall 
be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two 
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open 

2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punish- 


merit of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work 
Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life 
of the Person attainted. 

Article IV. 

Section 1. 

1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to 
the public Acts_, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every 
other State. And the Congress may by general Laws 
prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Pro- 
ceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. 

Section 2. 

1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. 

2. A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, 
or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found 
in another State, shall on Demand of the executive 
Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up 
to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the 

3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, 
under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in 
Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be dis- 
charged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered 
up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour 
may be due. 

Section 3. 

1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into 
this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected 
within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State 
be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts 
of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the 
States concerned as well as of the Congress. 

2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and 


make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the 
Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ; 
and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as 
to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any 
particular State. 

Section 4. 

1. The United States shall guarantee to every State in 
this Union a Republican Form of Gov^ernment, and shall 
protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application 
of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legis- 
lature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. 

Article V. 

1. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses 
shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this 
Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of 
two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention 
for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be 
valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitu- 
tion, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths 
of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths 
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may 
be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amend- 
ment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand 
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the 
first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first 
Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be 
deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. 

Article VI. 

1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, 
before the Adoption of tliis Constitution, shall be as valid 
against the United States under this Constitution as under 
the Confederation. 

2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States 


which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties 
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the 
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; 
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any 
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, 
and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and 
all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United 
States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath 
or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious 
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office 
or public Trust under the United States. 

Article VII. 

1. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, 
shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitu- 
tion between the States so ratifying the Same. 

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the 
States present the Seventeenth Day of September in 
the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and 
Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United 
States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof 
We have hereunto subscribed our Names, 


Presidt, and Deputy from Virginia^ 


Article I. (1791) 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Article II. (1791) 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
Arms, shall not be infringed. 

Article III. (1791) 

No Soldier sliall, in time of peace be quartered in any 
house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of 
war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

Article IV. (1791) 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 
searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Article V. (1791) 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other- 
wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment 
of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in tlie land or 



naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in 
time of War or in public danger; nor shall any person 
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy 
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal 
Case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of 
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor 
shall private property be taken for public use, without 
just compensation. 

Article VI. (1791) 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 
the State and district wherein the crime shall liave been 
committed, which district shall have been previously ascer- 
tained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause 
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses 
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining 
Witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Coun- 
sel for his defence. 

Article VII. (1791) 

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy 
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall 
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be- other- 
wise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than 
according to the rules of the common law. 

Article VIII. (1791) 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines 
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Article IX. (1791) 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, 
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained 
by the people. 


Article X. (1791) 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
served to the States respectively, or to the people/ 

Article XI. (1798) 

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be 
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, com- 
menced or prosecuted against one of the United States by 
Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of 
any Foreign State. - 

Article XII. (1804) 

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and 
vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of 
whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same 
state with themselves ; they shall name in their ballots the 
person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the 
person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make 
distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of 
all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number 
of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, 
and transmit sealed to the scat of the government of the 
United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — 
The President of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate 
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and 
the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the 
greatest number of votes for President, shall be the Presi- 
dent, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, 
then from the persons having the highest number not ex- 
ceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the 
House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by bal- 
lot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes 
shall be taken by states, the representation from each state 
having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of 


a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a 
majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. 
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a 
President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon 
them, before the fourth day of March next following, then 
the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of 
the deatli or other constitutional disability of the President. 
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice- 
President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be 
a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and 
if no person have a majority, then from the two highest 
numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-Presi- 
dent; a quorum for the purpose sliall consist of two-thirds 
of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the 
whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no per- 
son constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.^ 

Article XIII. (1865) 

Section 1. 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a 
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been 
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or 
any place subject to their jurisdiction. 

Section 2. 

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by ap- 
propriate legislation. - 

Article XIV. (1868) 

Section 1. 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the 
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No 


State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge 
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; 
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or 
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any 
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 

Section 2. 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several 
States according to their respective numbers, counting the 
whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians 
not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for 
the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of 
the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Execu- 
tive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the 
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabi- 
tants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and 
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, 
except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the 
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the pro- 
portion which the number of such male citizens shall bear 
to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of 
age in such State. 

Section 3. 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Con- 
gress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold 
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or 
under any State,who, having previously taken an oath, as 
a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, 
or as a member of any State legislature, or as an execu- 
tive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Consti- 
tution of the United States, shall have engaged in insur- 
rection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or com- 
fort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote 
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 


Section 4. 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, 
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of 
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrec- 
tion or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither 
the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any 
debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebel- 
lion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or 
emancipation of any slave; but all such debts^ obligations 
and claims shall be held illegal and void. 

Section 5. 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropri- 
ate legislation, the provisions of this article.^ 

Article XV. (1870) 

Section 1. 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall 
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of 

Section 2. 

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.^ 

Article XVI. (1913) 

Section 1. 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes 
on incomes, from whatever source derived, without appor- 
tionment among the several States, and without regard to 
any census or enumeration.^ 


Article XVII. (1913) 

Section 1. 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 
two Senators from each State^ elected by the people thereof^ 
for six years ; and each Senator shall have one vote. The 
electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite 
for electors of the most numerous branch of the State 

Section 2. 

When vacancies happen in the representation of any 
State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State 
shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Pro- 
vided, That the Legislature of any State may empower the 
executive thereof to make temporary appointment until the 
])cople fill the vacancies by elections as the Legislature may 

Section 3. 

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect 
the election or term of any Senator chosen before it be- 
comes valid as part of the Constitution.* 

Article XVIII. (1919) 

Section 1. 

After one year from the ratification of this article the 
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors 
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation 
thereof from the United States and all territory subject 
to the jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes, is hereby 

Section 2. 

The Congress and the several States shall have concur- 
rent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 


Section 3. 

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been 
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legis- 
lature of the several States^ as provided by the Constitution, 
within sev^en years from date of the submission hereof to 
the States by the Congress. 

Article XIX. (1920) 

Section 1. 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall 
not be denied, or abridged by the United States or by any 
State on account of sex. 

Section 2. 

Congress shall have power^ by appropriate legislation, to 
enforce the provisions of this Article. 


Abgeorgnetenhaus, House of 
Representatives of Prussia, 

Abolition Movement, 138, 181 

Abridgement of Freedom of 
speech forbidden, 162 

Absolute Majority, tyranny of, 

Acclamation of King, 1.5 

Act of Union, Ireland 1800, 44 

Adams, John, at beginning of 
American Revolution, 66 S 
on committee for Declara- 
tion of Independence, 85; 
absent from Constitutional 
Convention, 100; Jefferson 
his vice-president, 118; 
Hamilton, his secretary of 
treasury, 121; on political 
parties, 133; Alien and Se- 
dition acts, 162; on speech 
by James Otis, 176; on 
Isolation of United States, 

Adams, John Quincy, 165-167, 
" Tariff of abominations " 
to defeat him, 141; Monroe 
Doctrine, 165; fought " Gag 
rule", 166; on president's 
power to free slaves, 167; 
Secretary of State for Mon- 
roe, 284-286; opposed joint 
declaration with England, 
286; stand in dispute with 
Russia, 286; portrait and 
note, 287 

Adams, Samuel, beginning of 
Revolutions, 66-, Committees 

of Correspondence, 67; ab- 
sent from Constitutional 
Convention, 100; Ratifica- 
tion of Constitution, 110, 
155 ; belief in Common Peo- 
ple, 159 

Addams, Jane, influence as a 
citizen, 349 

Adjustment of State and Fed- 
eral Government, 123 

Administrative Law, 49 

Alabama Claims, 297 

Alaska, dispute with Russia, 284 

Albania, 264 

Albany Plan of Union, 158 

Alfred, King of England, 17 

Algeria, under French Sphere 
of Influence, 270 

Allegiance, in a Federal Repub- 
lic, double, 114, 123, 301 

Alien Act, 162 

Alien, status of wife of, 303 

Alliances, European, to isolate 
France, 266 
The two great alliances: The 
Triple Alliance, and the 
Triple Entente, 266-7 

Alliances, Permanent, Wash- 
ington's warning against, 
156; Jefferson's and John 
Adams's views, 281; entry 
into Great War, 328 

Alsace, during French Revolu- 
tion, 201 

Alsace-Lorraine, imperial ter- 
ritory, 221; part of indem- 
nity to Germany in 1870, 
252; France's desire to re- 
gain, 266; "La Ravanche," 
277; sore-spot in Europe, 




Amendments to Constitution of 
the United States, Method, 
Article V of Constitution, 
117; first ten are a Bill of 
Rights, 110; 111; 117-118; 
eleventh through nine- 
teenth, 118 

American, The, real and the 
false, 313; of today and to- 
morrow, 314; his outlook 
and duties, 350; necessity 
for survey of himself, 351 

American Citizenship, 300-315 

American Constitution, (see 
Constitution of the United 
States) 359 

American Experiment, The, un- 
molested by foreign intru- 
sion, 287 

American Ideal, The, 315; 323- 

American Ideals, in Farewell 
Address, 157; 316-334; 
bases, 318-323; Our common 
ideals, 325; ideals in prac- 
tice, 326; Failures, 329; 
ideals of world peace, 332- 
333; necessity of renewal of 
foundation principles, 333- 

American Literature, its future, 
quotation, Pancoast, 174; 

American Principles, confusion 
of, 338 

American Revolution, The, Real 
Cause, 42, 268; Friends in 
England, 43; Nationalities 
in Colonies 64; change in 
ways of living, 64; invent- 
iveness of colonists, 64 
stagnation in England, 65 
French and Indian War, 65 
Stamp Tax, 66; Inter- 
ference with trade, 67; 

" Intolerable Acts, 68-69 ; 
Quartering of hired troops, 

" American Scholar, The ", 
" Our Intellectual Declara- 
tion of Independence," 181 

" American System, The," — 
Tariff for protection, 141 

American Theory of State, 
threefold aspect, 324 

" Americanism," 337 

Americanization of the Amer- 
ican, necessity, 350 

Anarchism, 241-245; disregard 
of future, 241-242; violent 
methods, 242; contrast with 
socialism, 242; two aspects 
— syndicalism, I. W. W. 
ism, 243 

Anglo-Saxon Period in Eng- 
land, 13-19; Angles, Sax- 
ons, and Jutes come to Eng- 
land, 13; A-S kingdoms 
unite, (829) 16; A-S taxa- 
tion, 15; 17; Christianity 
introduced, 13; Government 
and lawsj 13-18; Loyalty, 
18; Local government re- 
mained, 18 

Anne, Queen, 42; 190 

Anthony, Susan B, XIX amend- 
ment, 118; influence as a 
citizen, 310 

Antietam, Battle of, occasion 
for Emancipation Pro- 
clamation, 89 

Anti-Federalist Party, (see 
Political Parties) 

" Appeal to the People, An," in 
English Government, 48 

Aquinas, St. Thomas, on sov- 
ereignty of People, 319-320 

Arbitration International, Our 
Foreign Policy, 279, 295- 
297; The Alabama Claims, 



29T; The Hague Confer- 
ences, 297; Great War 
Claims of Great Britain, 
294; An American Ideal, 
328; Arbitration Treaties, 

Aristocratic Family system of 
Virginia, 56 

Aristotle, idea of government 
(quotation) 318 

Articles of Confederation, Con- 
gress merely advisory, 71; 
Constitutional Convention 
called to amend, 72; plan to 
amend discarded, 103; rea- 
son for failure of tariff of 
1781, 181; compare with 
German Confederation, 215 

Assumption of debts, Hamil- 
ton's measure, 161 

Assumption of Power in "War 
Time by Lincoln, 90 

Athens, classes, free men and 
slaves, 318 

Atlantic Monthly, 182 

Attempts at Union by Colonies, 

Augustine, St., definition of 
Government, 319 

Austria, omitted from Frank- 
fort Convention 216; War 
with Prussia, 1866, cut off 
from Germany, 220; ex- 
pelled from Germany by 
Bismarck, 2.56 

Austria-Hungary, from 1870 to 
1914, 2.55-258; taxes, 256; 
nationalities and languages, 
256; map of fragments, 257; 
Declaration of War on Ser- 
bia, 1914, 274 

Australia, 270 

Autocracy of Louis XIV, 190; 
of Emperor of Germany, 
224; of King of Prussia, 

224; causes in Germany, 
225; necessity for routine, 
231; Bismarck's policy, 226; 
Peter, the Great, in Russia, 
258; of Roman Emperors, 


Baden, South German State, 220 

Bakunin, Mikhail, revolutionary 
anarchist, 241-242 

Balance of Power, set up, 136; 
Turkey in Europe, 265; 
Crimean War, 265 

Ballot Act (England), 46 

Balkans and Turkey, 264 

Baltimore, Lord, founder of 
Maryland, 60 

Bancroft, historian, 185 

Barbary Pirates, Jefferson, 292 

Bastile, Fall of, 196 

Bavaria, South German State, 

Belgium, not on map in 1815, 
205; progress, 262 

Benevolences, 33, 36 

Berkeley, Governor, 57 

Berlin to Bagdad Railway, 272 

"Biglow Papers," Lowell, 182 

Bill of Rights (English) Provi- 
sions, 41 

Bill of Rights (American State 
Constitutions), 71; sug- 
gested " Declaration of 
Rights of Man and Citizen," 
in French Constitution of 
1791, 198 

Bill of Rights (Constitution of 
the United States) The first 
10 amendments, 110 

Billeting of soldiers, in private 
houses. Petition of Right, 
83; in amendment II to 
Constitution, 375 



Bismarck, 219-229; method of 
uniting Germany, 220 ; Bun- 
desrat, seat of imperial 
power, 222; militarism, 226; 
yielded to Catholics and So- 
cialists, 233; Franco-Prus- 
sian War, 251; lack of colo- 
nial ambitions, 255; Aus- 
tria, 256 

"Black Death" (England), 
helped labor, 29 

" Blithedale Romance, The ", 
Hawthorne, 183 

Bohemia, in 1848, 210; Czecho- 
slovakia, 92; 256; 350 

Bolivar, Simon, South American 
leader, 283 

" Bolshevik ", name-calling, 343 

Bolsheviki — in Russia, 245 

Boroughs, rotten, pocket, 45, 209 

Bosnia and Hertzegovina, 258; 
under Austria-Hungary, 
268 ; Assassination of Crown 
Prince of Austria, 277 

Boston, 57 

Boundary, Oregon, 284 

Bourbons, Restoration, 204, 207 

Bourgeoisie, in France, 208; 
235; name-calling, 343 

" Bracebridge Hall", Irving, 179 

Bradford, William, Puritan 
Writer, 174 

Brandenburg, Mark, becomes 
Prussia, 214 

Brazil, 283 

Bremen, city state, 221 

British Empire, possessions, 270 

Bryan, Secretary of State, 
"Identical Note", 293; ar- 
bitration treaties, 297 

Bryant, W. C, American author, 

Buchanan's administration, tar- 
iff measure, 142 

Budget, (English), 126 

Buenos Ayres, recognized, 284 

" Builders, The," Longfellow, 

Builders of the American Ideal, 

Bulgaria, 264 

Bundesrat, seat of Imperial 
Power, 222, 223; See Ger- 
man Government and Chap- 
ter XI 

Bureaucratic System in Ger- 
many, 232 

Burgesses, (English), 23 

Burgesses, House of, in Vir- 
ginia, 56 

Burke, Edmund, in sympathy 
with colonists, 43, 67; on 
study of law in American 
colonies, 176; " On Concilia- 
tion with America", 176; 
Revulsion against French 
Revolution, 192-3 

Byrd, of Virginia, colonial 
writer, 174 

Cabinet Government, English, 
begins, 42; the "Govern- 
ment," 48; "An appeal to 
the people," 48-49; Ameri- 
can. 121 

Cable, George W., Southern 
writer, 185 

Cahiers, lists of grievances 

^ (France), 194 

California, acquired, 288 

Calhoun, John C, 141 

Calling names as a political 
weapon, 246 

Cambridge, Mass., 57 

Canning, George, 281^, 286 

Capital, Marx's theory, 238, 



" Capital, Das," Bible of Social- 
ism, 236 

Carolinas, the, 61 

Caroline Islands (German pos- 
session) 271 

Carr, Dabney, Virginia Com- 
mittee of Correspondence, 

Carthaginian Freedom of Seas, 

Catholics, barred from Parlia- 
ment, 35; persecuted, 36; 
restoration of religion, 40; 
disfranchised, 41 ; allowed 
to sit in Parliament, 44; 56; 
Maryland and religious tol- 
eration, 60 

" Centennial Cantata," Lanier, 
185; quotation, see frontis- 

" Chambered Nautilus, The," 
Holmes, 182 

Chancellor of the Exchequer 
(English), 125 

Chancellor of Germany, 222-223 
(see Chapter X) 

Changes in United States Gov- 
ernment, 121-123 

Characteristics of Colonial 
Americans, 64 

Charlemagne, 213 

Charles I, struggle with Parlia- 
ment, 37-39 ; 57 

Charles IT, 63 

Charles X (of France), 208 

Charter Oak, 63 

Chartists, 45-46 

Checks and balances, 106 

Chili, recognized, 284 

China, Open Door, 289, 297-298 

Chinese Exclusion from United 
States, 303 

Church, in Saxon England, 14; 
King Alfred, 18; Henry 
Vni, Head of church, 34 

Citizen-American, fourteenth 
and fifteenth amendments, 
118; 302-3; the good citi- 
zen, 310; negroes, 118 

Citizen's Influence, A, 310 

Citizen King, Louis Philippe, 

Citizenship in the United States, 

City States, 221 

Civil Rights, 305-308 

Civil Service Reform, 122-123 

Class Struggle, 237-238; 340; 
quotation, 249 

Classes in early England, 13; 
after Reform Bills, 45; in 
the U. S., 69; 71; after the 
Revolution of 1848, 210; in 
Poland, 261 

Clay, Henry, Whigs, 134; pro- 
tective tariff, 140; compro- 
mise tarifi', 142, 169; South 
American policy, 280 ; medal 
awarded (Illustration), 


Cleveland, President, 135, 142 

Code Napoleon, 204 

"Collectivism," 240, 243 

Colombia, recognized by United 
States, 284; treaty of 1921, 

Colonial Assemblies, 56; lit- 
erature, 174 

Colonies, Old idea of, 42 

Colonial Possessions, Map of 
Africa, 269 

Commandments, Ten, basis of 
Alfred's law, 17; basis of 
our laws, 326 

Common Good, The, Maryland 
and Western lands, 72; 315; 
Plato, 318; Virginia Bill of 
Rights, 321 ; American 
Ideal, 323; 329; Interna- 
tional, 334, 340 



Common Happiness, Aristotle, 

Common ideals of Government, 

Common men, quotations, 53; in 

west, 75 
Common welfare. Preamble to 

Constitution, 115; Locke, 

Commonwealth, 37 ; Hooker, 

Commons, House of, {see House 

of Commons) 
Committee of Public Safety 

(French Revolution), 201 
Committee of Ways and Means, 

Committees of Correspondence, 

Communes (in France), 196; of 

Paris, 201 
Communism, 234-235 
"Communistic Manifesto," 236, 

Community of Will, 346 
Compromise of 1833, 142; of 

1850, 170 
Compulsory Voting, 211 
" Concord Hymn," Emerson, 182 
Confederate States of America, 

Confederation of the Rhine, The, 

Confederation, New England, 62 
Congress (see chapters V, VI 

and Constitution) 
Congress, Continental, 68 
Congress of Vienna, 204-207; 

Big Four, 205; division of 

Spoils, 205; Final act, 206 
Congressional Government, " by 

committees," 124; Bills re- 
ferred, " reported, or kill- 
ed," 125 
Connecticut, Founding, 59; 

" Fundamental Orders of ", 
60; Constitution of, 65 

Conquest, Norman, 19 

Constitution, The, Holmes's 
Poem, 182 

Constitution (English), estab- 
lished, 30, Petition of Right, 

Constitution (of the United 
States) (chapters V, VI, 
and appendix) Suffrage re- 
strictions, 74; compromises, 
104; two defects, 105; 
checks and balances, 106; 
separation of powers, 107; 
electors, 108; refusal to 
sign, 108; 12 states signed; 
a new form of government, 
109; Preamble, 115; su- 
preme law, 116; changes by 
interpretation, 119; adop- 
tion, 109-111; contrast with 
making of German Consti- 
tution, 220; Oath of alle- 
giance, 304; quotations, 322; 
not sacred, 348 

Constitution of 1791 (France) 
198; of 1848, 208 

Constitutional Convention, 95- 
111; Madison's secret Jour- 
nal, 97; men, 100; diffi- 
culties, 101-107; made a new 
form of government, 109 

Constitutions " granted," Eouis 
XVIII to France, 208; 
Frederick William IV to 
Prussia, 217; submitted to 
Reichstag, 220; Czar to 
Russians, 261 

Constitutional Growth in Eng- 
land, 24-31 ; in northern 
Europe, 262 

Cooper, James Fenimore, 179 

Court of High Commission, 38 

Crimean War, 265 



Critical Period, 69-Tl 

Cromwell, 39-40 

Croatia, 258 

Crown Prince Francis Ferdi- 
nand of Austria, 274 

Cuba, attempted annexation, 
138; 288; 328 

Curia Regis, 16; institutions 
descended from, 20 

"Curse of the Charter Break- 
ers," 82 

Czecho-Slovakia, 246 

Czechs, 256 


Danegeld, 17; 28 

Danes in England, 16; 17 

Danton, French Revolution, 
200; 203 

Dartmouth Case, 164 

Dayton Jonathan, 110 

de Montfort, Simon, 22; 23; 51 

de facto government, recogni- 
tion. United States Foreign 
policy, 288 

Declaration of Independence, 
43; issued, 69; general dis- 
cussion, 85-90; Committee 
of the Whole, 85; central 
thought, 86; value as liter- 
ary document, 86, 159; as 
state paper, 86, 159; signa- 
tures (fac-simile), 87; dan- 
ger to signers, 89 ; founded 
on Virginia Bill of Rights, 
84, 321 ; quotations, 322 

" Declaration of Independence, 
Our Intellectual," 181 

"Declaration of Intention," to 
become a citizen, 303, 305, 

Declaration of London, 293 

Declaration of Rights of man 
and citizen (French), 198 

Declaration of Rights (Ameri- 
can), 68 

Declaration of Just Principle, 

Democracy, in England, 49-50; 
in colonies, 5Q; Massachu- 
setts town-meeting, 58; 
Hooker and Connecticut, 
59-60; Sons of Liberty, GG-, 
Constitution of Ohio, 74; 
free land labor movement, 
education, 75; 145; 148; 
152; Magna Charta, 80; 
Constitution, 109; pure 
democracy, 112-13; initia- 
tive, referendum, recall, 
129-130; political parties, 
136; westward movement, 
145-146; Franklin, 159; 
state constitutions, 167; The 
Miracle of Democracy, 172- 
3; free discussion, 176; 
Ideal (Walt Whitman) 183; 
in Norway, 205 ; retarded by 
French Revolution, 203; 
207; 281; in France in 1830, 
208; lack in Germany, 215; 
220; 224; 232; 233; in Ger- 
man towns, 232; dangers 
of, 246; England (1870 to 
1914), 253; in Hungary, 
258; Poland, 261; Northern 
Europe, 262; Switzerland, 
262; Contrast Europe with 
the United States, 279; 
'^ Republican System," 287; 
" to make the world safe for 
democracy ", 298 ; Economic 
situation, 308; importance 
of citizens, 310; 312; 313; in 
Greece, 318; in Rome, 318- 
319; in church, 319; An un- 
conscious struggle, 320; 
American ideal, 322; Com- 



mon good, 334; Mass of 
People, 343-4 

Democratic Party, 133-137 
since War of Secession, 133 
Jefferson founder, 160 
platform, 1840, 134; presi- 
dents since 1885, 135; plat- 
form in 1912, 135 

Denmark, at Congress of Vien- 
na, 205; Belgium, 209; 262 

Dickenson, John, 100 

Dictatorship in Russia, 246 

Dignity of Man, American 
Ideal, 325 

Diplomacy, (secret) England, 
49; Congress of Vienna, 
205 ; European countries, 
267; (open) U.S. 267; Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 283-291; Ar- 
bitration, 294-297; The 
Open Door, 297-298; Bis- 
marck's, 227; 251; The Bal- 
ance of Power, 264-266; 
The Great Alliances, 266- 

Disease Prevention, 331 

"Dissenters," 36 

Divine Right, 35-36; William I 
of Germany, 224; 320 

Documentary Sources of Ameri- 
can Rights, 311 

Documents, of Liberty, 77-94 

Drake, Sir Francis, 291 

Dry Law — XVITT amendment, 

Duma, The, 261 

"Dumping" goods, 141 

Duties of American Citizen, 

Duty, 325 


Early Settlers in America, 54 
East Indies, 271 

Economic Code, need of, 307, 

" Economic Determinism ", 237 

Economic Justice, 330 

Edicts, French laws under ab- 
solutism, 192 

Education of Negroes, 139 

Education in the United States, 
149-152; Latin schools, 
academies, female semin- 
aries, 150; Northwest Or- 
dinance and public school 
lands, 150, 160; in South; 
Jefferson's plans, 150; lack 
of interest for 50 years, 
151; Public High School , 
151; Michigan's comi)lete 
system, 151 ; Increase in 
number of schools, 152; 
Farewell Address, 157; 
Franklin on franchise, 159; 
of the common will, 331 ; for 
patriotism and citizenship, 
346; as a means of eradi- 
cating radicalism, 346; pre- 
sent generation, 351 

Educational test for suffrage, 

Edward, the Confessor, 17 

Edward I, 23 

Edward VI, 34 

Egypt, Sphere of Influence of 
British Empire, 270 

Election of King, in A-S times, 
19; in Lancastrian period, 

Eliot, Sir John, 37; 51; 83 

Elizabeth, Queen, 34-35; Reli- 
gious Persecutions, ar- 
bitrary courts, induvStrial 
seized Finland, 260 

Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, 
revolution, beggary, 34-35 

Elastic Clause, 115-116; method 




of amending constitution, 

Elba, Napoleon's escape, 206 

Electoral College, change in 
functions, 123 

Emancipation Proclamation, 89- 
92; quotation, 90 

Emerson, R. W., 181 

" Ems Dispatch," Bismarck's 
editing, 251 

Encouragement of Popular 
Government abroad, 280- 

England, (Chapters I, II, and 
IV,) ; Constitution, 38 ; 
Government, 46-51; the cab- 
inet, 48 ; discontent in colon- 
ial times, 64; the American 
Revolution, 65 ; Financial 
system, 125-126; at Con- 
gress of Vienna, 206; from 
1870 to 1914, 255; Land sys- 
tem, 255; colonial policy to 
white colonies, 270; sea- 
power, 272, 290; rivalry 
with Germany, 272; sphere 
of influence in Egypt, 270; 
in China, 298 

Entente Cordiale, 267 

Equality before law, preserved 
by Napoleon, 204 

Eritrea, on Red Sea, to Italy, 270 

Error, Jefferson, quotation, 
234; Lincoln and Jefferson 
on, 346 

Estates General, 192-194 

Europe, intervention in Ameri- 
can affairs, 165; checked, 
169; size compared with 
U. S., 248; Colonial Ambi- 
tions, 268-272; Possessions 
in South America, 283; be- 
fore the Great War (map) 
275; since the Great War, 
(map) 276 

" European System ", founded 

on force, 288 
" Evangeline ", Longfellow, 180 
"Evening Wind," Bryant, 178 
" Excellence of birth and educa- 
tion ", Hamilton's idea for 
ruling class, 71 
" Excelsior ", Longfellow, 180 
Exclusion Act of 1882, 303 


Fair play, American Ideal, 327 

Family, The, American ideal of, 
325; Marx's idea, 238 

Farewell Address, Washington's 
176; quotation, 279; fixed 
our policy of isolation, 282 

Federal Diet at Frankfort, 215 

Federal Republic, 114 

Federalist Papers, 109; 160; 
162; 177 

Federalist Party, 133 

Fifty-fourth parallel, trouble 
with Russia, 284 

Financial system of United 
States, contrast with Eng- 
lish, 125, 127; Hamilton, 161 

Finland, given to Russia at Con- 
gress of Vienna, 205 ; seized, 
260; 350 

Final Act of Congress of Vien- 
na, 206 

" First Papers ", for naturaliza- 
tion, 303 

Fiske, American historian, 185 

Florida Acquisition, 283-288 

Folk Moot, 14 

Forced loans, 33 

Foreign Policy of United States, 
initiated by Washington, 
156; 278-298; encourage- 
ment of republican govern- 
ment abroad, 279-281; neu- 



trality, 279; 281-283; in 
Great War, 294; freedom of 
the seas, 279, 291-295; the 
Monroe Doctrine, 279, 283- 
289; 291-295; 327-328; in- 
ternational arbitration, 294, 
295-297; the open door, 297- 
298; Our Future Policy, 

Foreign Policy of European na- 
tions, secret diplomacy, Ger- 
many, 224; England, 49, 
267; France, 267; Italy, 267 

"Forest Hymn, The," Bryant, 

Fox, English statesman, 43, 67 

France, Chapter X, 188-211; 
syndicalism, 243; Triple 
Entente, 267; Colonial Pos- 
sessions, 268-270, 289 ; dread 
of German military power, 
272; gained Haiti, Louisi- 
ana, 282; Morocco, 298 

Francis Ferdinand, crown 
Prince of Austria, 277 

Francis Joseph, Ruler of Aus- 
tria-Hungary, 256 

Frankfort Convention, 211, 216, 
219 ; Carl Schurz, 280 

Franco-Prussia War, United 
Germany, 221; 250-253; 
Ems Dispatch, 251 

Frederick the Great, 214 

Frederick III, German Em- 
Frederick William IV, 216-217 
peror, 255 

" Free Contract," 242 

Free land, 146 

Free Soil Party, 134 

" Free Ships make free goods," 
Holland declaration, 301 

Freedom of the Seas, 291-295; 
American ideal, 333 

Freedom of speech, press, and 
assembly, 301 

Freeman, E. A. English his- 
torian, quotations, 11, 32 

French and Indian War, 63 

French Revolution, quotation 
from Daniel Webster, 188; 
188-204; causes, 188-190; 
conditions in France, 190; 
village priests support it, 
199; monarchy abolished, 
200; committee of public 
safety. Reign of Terror, 
201; effect of excesses, 207; 
sympathisers frightened, 

Friendliness, American Ideal, 

Franklin, Benjamin, 158-159; 
committee on Declaration of 
Independence, 85; at Con- 
stitutional Convention, 98 ; 

Fundamental Constitutions for 
Carolinas, 61-62 

Fundamental Orders of Con- 
necticut, 60 

Fugitive Slave Law, 138 


Gag rule, 164 

Garland, Hamlin, 185 

George III, 42, 68, 86 

Georgia, settlement 62, Conti- 
nental Congress, 68 

Germany (German Empire) 
Chapter XI; Napoleon and 
Germany, 214; efforts to 
unite, 211 ; reason for study- 
ing, 212; early history, 213; 
Holy Roman Empire, 213; 
The Confederation of the 
Rhine, 214-15; movements 
toward unity, 215; Frank- 
fort Convention, 216-219; 



Bismarck, Prussia, and the 
German Empire, 219-221; 
The German Government, 
221-224; Prussia, 224-226; 
Militarism, 226-229 ; Univer- 
sities, 226-229 ; German 
Theorv of the State, 229- 
232; Causes of lack of 
democracy, 231-2 ; Demo- 
cratic Features, 232; Social- 
ism, 240; Franco-Prussian 
War, 250-253; German Em- 
pire, 253-255; Balance of 
power, 265 ; Triple Alliance, 
266; Middle Europe Pro- 
ject, 272-3; The Great War 
begins, 274; Resentment to- 
wards U. S., 294-5; stand on 
arbitration, 297 
Germanic Confederation, 215 
German Government, 221-224; 
Constitution, making con- 
trasted with that of Consti- 
tution of U. S., 221; Com- 
position, 221 ; Bundesrat 
seat of sovereignty, 222; 
Reichstag, 222-3; suifrage 
and representation, 223; 
chancellor, 223; Emperor, 
223 ; " Government by ex- 
perts," 223 
Gerry, Elbridge, 100 
" Gettysburg Address," 176 
Gibraltar, 2^70 
Gladstone, William, 46, 51 
" Glorious " Revolution of 1688, 

" Good laws of Edward," 17, 30 
Government of England, 46-50 
Government of the United 
States, (see chapter VI,) 
contrast with that of Eng- 
land, 8, 25; Theory of Gov- 
ernment, (see sovereignty 
of the people) 

Government by consent, 319- 

Great Britain, (see England) 

Great Elector Frederick, 214 

Great Documents of Liberty, 
77-91; Magna Charta, 21-22; 
77-83; Petition of Right, 
37; 83-4; Declaration of In- 
dependence, 69 ; 84-89; 353, 
The Constitution of the 
United States, 89; 95; 359; 
The Emancipation Proc- 
lamation, 89-92 

Great Powers of Europe, 265 

Great War, The, Causes, 250; 
274; 277 

Greece, 211; 280; city slates, 318 

Greenback Party, 136 

Greene, Nathaniel, 155 

Grey, Lord, 293 

Guatemala, 284 

Guiana, 283 


Habeas Corpus, Act of, 40; 
personal liberty, 306; 307 

Hague Conferences, 297 

Haiti, 282 

Hamburg, 221 

Hamilton, Alexander, at Consti- 
tutional Convention, 98-99; 
Defense of Constitution, 
108; 109; 111; Federalist 
Leader, 132; Tariff, 140; 
Financial system, 156; 160- 
162; Federalist Papers, 109; 

Hampton, John, 38, 51 

Hancock John, 64, 88 

Hapsburg, 213 

Hartford Convention, 133, 159 

Harrison, President, 134 

Harte, Bret, 184 

Hawaiian Islands, 289 



Hawkins, English seaman, 291 
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 183 
Hay, John, 298 
Hayne of North Carolina, 168 
Henry, Patrick, 66; opposed 

Constitution, 100; 109; 155; 

163; 174; 336 
Henry I, 20 
Henry II, Jury, 21 
Henry III, 22 
Henry IV, 24 

Henry VII, 30; 32; star cham- 
ber, 33 
Henry VIII, 34 
Herrenhaus, 224 
Hertzgovina, 258 
" Hiawatha," Longfellow, 180 
Historians, American, 185 
Hobbes, Thomas, 321 
Hohenzorern, 224 
Holland, 262; 271; 291-292 
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 182 
" Holy Alliance," 283 
Holy Roman Empire, 213 
Homestead Law, 147 
Hong Kong, 270 
Hooker, Richard, 320-321 
Hooker, Thomas, Connecticut, 

59; 60 
House of Commons beginning, 

48 ; 226 
House of Lords, 46; 48; 49 
House of Hapsburg, 255-256 
House of Representatives, 75 

(see Chapters V and VI) 
" House of the Seven Gables, 

The," Hawthorne, 179 
Human Rights, 198; 319; 321 
Hungary, 210; 256 
Hutchinson, Anne, 60 


"Ichabod," Whittier, 181 
Ideals of World Peace, 332-333 

Ideals, American (see Ameri- 
can Ideals) 

Identical Note, Bryan, 297 

Illiteracy, 331 

Impressment of Sailors, 292 

Inaugural address, Washing- 
ton's, 156; Jackson's, 174 

India, 260, 270 

Indiana, suffrage, 305 

Individual, Marx, 239; 247; 248 

Individual Freedom, one half of 
American Ideal, 323 

Initiative, The, 129-130 

International, The, 239-241 

International Law, Marshall, 
164; prize court, 293; 295; 
Arbitration, 295, 297; Peace, 
328; relations, (of U. S.) 
Foreign Policy, 278-299 

Interpretation of Constitution, 
119-121, 172 

Internal Improvements, 134; 166 

Intolerable Acts, 67-68 

Inventiveness of American, 64- 

"Invincible Armada, The," 291 

Ireland, Ulster Planted, 36; 
Charles I's coercion, 38 ; Act 
of Union, 44; Irish Parlia- 
ment, 44 ; representation, 
45; American outlook, 349 

Irish Question, 255 

Irving, Washington, 178-179 

Isolation, 278, 281-283; J. Q. 
Adams, 286; Monroe Doc- 
trine, 287; in World War, 

Italy, united, 262; colonial am- 
bitions, 268; in Africa, 270; 
I. W. W., 243-245; name calling, 




Jackson, Andrew, 167-169; Jack- 
sonian Democracy, 75 ; 
Spoils system, 122; elected, 
141; 146; second inaugural, 

Jackson, Helen Hunt, 185 

James I and divine right, 35; 
Virginia begun, 36 ; struggle 
with parliament, 35-37; star 
chamber, 34 ; Ulster, 34 

James II, 40-41; closes New 
York assembly, 61 

Japanese-Russian War, 267-268 

Jay, John, 100 

Jefferson, Thomas, ancestor, 56; 
D^cliaration of Independ- 
ence, 84; 85; 88; absent 
from Constitutional Con- 
vention, 100; 110; believed 
U. S. would be a nation of 
small land owners, 132; 
Anti-f;derdist, 132-3; ed- 
ucation, university of Vir- 
ginia, 150-151; 159-160; in 
Washington's cabinet, 161- 
2; Louisiana Purchase, 162; 
Kentucky Resolutions, 163; 
Quotations, 234 ; Isolation, 
281; alliance and joint de- 
claration with England, 
282; 286; Barbary Pirates, 
292; 346 

Jerusalem, attempt at commu- 
nism, 235 

Jews, suffrage, 41; allowed to 
sit in Parliament, 44 

John, King, 21; 320 

Journal of the Constitution, 97 

Jury, Trial by, 21; 29; 78; 93; 

Kamerun, 271 

Kansas, in Republican platform, 

1854, 134 
Kentucky Resolutions, 163 
Kiel Canal, 272; 295 
King's Peace, The, 16 
King, Rufus, 99 
Kossuth, 280 

La Vendee, 201 

Labor, rise of common people, 
28; 45; Sons of Liberty, 66; 
slavery, 137; as a political 
issue, 142; 147-149; Help in 
Revolution, 148; Labor 
Union, 148; Public schools, 
148; Marx on labor, 238; 
Collectivism, 240 

" Ladder of St. Augustine ", 
Longfellow, 180 

Lafayette, 68, 196 

Land system in France, 194, 253 

Land system in England, 255 

Landtag, 219, 224-225 

Langton, Stephen, 51, 82-83 

Lanier, Sidney, 184-185, Quota- 
tion, see Frontispiece 

" Last Leaf, The ", Holmes, 182 

Law, Beginning of written law, 
78; knowledge in Colonies, 
102-103; of Revolutionary 
Writers, 176 

League of Nations, the quad- 
ruple alliance, 283; a just 
league, 331 

Lecky, English Historian, 67 

Lee, Richard Henry, 100, 109 

"Legitimacy", 204 

Liberty Party, 134 

Leopold .of Coburg, King of 
Belgium, 209 



Lexington, 69 

Liberals, in England, 43; in 
Europe, 209 

Liberum veto, 215; 261 

Lincoln, Abraham, 171-172; in- 
fluence, 310; Quotation, 323; 
312; 346 

Literacy Test for naturalization, 

Livingston, Robert, 85 

Local government, in Saxon 
England, 18; modern Eng- 
land, 50; in Germany, 232 

Locke, John, 61, 321 

London Company, 36 

Longfellow, Henry W., quota- 
tion, 95; 180 

Londonderry, 36 

" Loose Construction ", 161 

Lords, House of, {see House of 

" Lost Occasion, The " Whittier, 

Louisiana Purchase, The, 145, 
160, 282 

Louis XIV, 190-192 

Louis XV, 192 

Louis XVI, 192-194; execution, 

Louis XVIII, 204, 208 

Louis Philippe, the Citizen King, 

Lowell, 182; quotations, 250, 335 

Loyalist poetry of the Revolu- 
tion, 177 

Lubeck, 221 

Lyons, 202 


McKinley, President, 135 
McKinley Tariff, 142 
McMahon, Marshall of France, 

McMaster, American historian, 

Magna Charta, 22, QQ, 78-83; A 
treaty of peace. No new 
laws, 78; Provisions, 78-79; 
61 articles, 79; Barones 
electi, 80; one copy in Brit- 
ish museum, 80; Publication, 
80; Broken and renewed, 82- 
83; clause relating to just- 
ice, 307 

Madison, James, in Constitu- 
tional Convention, 97; se- 
cret journal, 97, 162; char- 
acter, 99; defense of Consti- 
tution, Federalist Papers, 
109, 163, 177; abuse, 109; A 
Federalist, 133; Kentucky 
Resolutions, 163, 167; favor- 
ed joint declaration, 286 

Madagascar, 270 

Magyars, 256, 258 

Majority Rule, statute of 1429, 
2T; in Germany, 227; Maxi- 
mists (Bolsheviki), 245; 
stand of extreme socialists, 
248; American method, 322; 
Lincoln on an unrestrained 
majority, 323; good-will of 
Americans, 339-341 (see 
Sovereignty of people and 
Source of government) 

Malta, 270 

"Mare Liberum" (Freedom of 
the Seas), 291 

" Margaret " of New Orleans 

Marie Antoinette, 202 

Mark Twain, 183 

Marriage, Marx's view, 238 

Marshall, John, help in inter- 
preting Constitution, 156; 
general sketch, 163-164; con- 
tribution to international 



law, 164; quotation, 322- 

Maryland, settlement, 38, 60; 
spirit of liberty and order, 4 
60-61; stand on western 
lands, 71 

Marx, Karl, 236-241 ; " Das Cap- 
ital," 236; "Communistic 
Manifesto," 236 

Mason, George, at Constitu" 
tional Convention, 100; Vir- 
ginia state Constitution, 
321; Foundation principles, 

Mass Rights, 239 

Massachusetts, Founding, 38^ 
57-60; General court, 58; 
schools, 58 ; Roger Williams, 
60; Hooker and suffrage, 
65; Committee of Corre- 
spondence, 67; Ratification 
of Constitution, 101 

Materialism, 340 

" Materialistic Conception of 
History", 237 

Mayflower Compact, 57 

Maximists, 245 

Message on the state of the 
country, 128 

Metternich, 205 

Metz, 251 

Mexico, 284 

Mexican War, 182, 329 

Michigan, schools, 151 

Middle Europe project, 271 

Middle West, writers, 185 

Militarism, Cromwell, 38; Ger- 
man, 226-229; hindrance to 
democracy, 232 ; Franco- 
Prussian War, 250-253; 
French army, 272; Rivalry, 
272 ; Monarchial System, 
287; Germany, 293 

Miller, Joaquin, 185 

Minority in Hungary, 258 

Mobilization of armies in Great 
War, 274, 277 

Monarchial System, 287 

Monopolies, James I, 36 

Monroe, James, administration, 
133, 164-165, 167 

Monroe Doctrine, Henry Clay, 
169; Foreign policy, 279; 
283-291; J. Q. Adams, 287- 
288; two aspects, 286; an 
American Ideal, 328 

Montenegro, 264 

Moot-court, 13 

" Morituri Salutamus ", Long- 
fellow, 181 

Moroccan troubles, 289 

Morris, Gouverneur, Constitu- 
tional Convention, 99; Com- 
mittee on style, 108; French 
Revolution, 201 

Morris*, Robert, 100, 116 

Moscow, 260 

" Mosses from an Old Manse ", 
Hawthorne, 183 

Motley, American historian, 185 

" Mountain, The ", 201 

Municipal Ownership, in Eng- 
land, 50 


Name-calling as Political Wea- 
pon, 343 

Napoleon, after French Revolu- 
tion, 190; made ideals of 
Revolution permanent, 203; 
career ended, 203; Code 
Napoleon, 204; Napoleon 
and Germany, 214; sells 
Louisiana to United States, 

Napoleon, Louis (Napoleon 
III), 210; Franco-Prussian 
War, 221, 250-253; The Ems 



Dispatch, 251; Sedan and 
defeat, 252 
National Assembly (France), 

194-19T; work of, 196 
National Assembly (Germany, 

1848), 211 
National Bank (of United 
States), 161; disestablish- 
ment, 169; attempts to re- 
establish, 166 
National Workshops, 209 
Nationality, Napoleon's influ- 
ence, 203, 214; disregarded 
by the Congress of Vienna, 
205, 206; Marx's idea, 239; 
in Great War, 262 
Nationalities in American Col- 
onies, 64 
Naturalization in the United 

States, 303 
Near East, The, 264 
"Necessity is a tyrant's plea," 

Negro question, (see slavery), 
Education, 139 ; disfran- 
chisment in South, 139; a 
present problem, 331 
Neutrality, of U. S., 156; of Bel- 
gium, 274; U. S. foreign 
policy, 282-283; U. S. in 
World war, 294 
New Code of Ethics in Business, 

New England Confederation, 62 
New Harmony, Indiana, 236 
New Jersey Plan, 103 
New Mexico, 286, 288 
New Orleans, Battle of, 167; 

"Margaret," 348 
" New Roof, The ", Constitution, 

New York, (state), selfish pol- 
icy, 61; religious toleration, 
61; suffrage, 305; (city) 
languages in 1643, 61 

Newspapers, 342 

Newton, Mass., 65 

Nineteenth Century, summary 
of events in Europe, 250 

Non-intervention from abroad, 
282; with others, 288 

Non-jurors, 44 

Non-partisan, 134 

Norris, Frank, author, 185 

North German Federation, con- 
stitution, 50; became Ger- 
man Empire, 250; Prussia, 
251, 252 

Northwest Ordinance of 1787, 
Education, 150; statute of 
religious freedom, 160 

Norway, 205, woman suffrage, 

Nullification, Hartford Conven- 
tion, 133; South Carolina, 
141, 142; Kentucky and Vir- 
ginia Resolutions, 163; 
Jackson's stand, 168 


" Oh Captain, my Captain," 
Whitman, 184 

O'Connell, Daniel, 44, 51 
O'Reilly, John Boyle, quotations, 
53, 153 

Oath of National Assembly, 
France, 188, 196; of Alle- 
giance, 304; of Supremacy, 

" On Conciliation with America," 
Burke, 176 

" One Big Union," I. W. W., 243 

Open Door, The, 279; 289; 297; 

Open Diplomacy, 267 ; American 
Ideal, 333 

Oratory, influence, 176 

Orders in Council, 29 



Oregon, disputes on boundary, 

Original jurisdiction of Su- 
preme Court, 116 

Otis, James, 66, 155, illustration, 
175, 177 

Owen, Robert, Utopian social- 
ism, 236 

Page, Thomas Nelson, 185 

Panama Canal, acquisition, 286; 
control, 289; international 
waterway, 295; tolls, 328 

Pancoast, H. S. quotation, 174 

Paper money, 123 

" Papers, first, final ", 304 

Parliament, 22-24; source of 
Law, 26; Struggle with 
King, 37-38; struggle with 
colonies, 63-69 

Paris, 196; 202; 252 

Party Conventions, 108; illus- 
tration, 222 

Party, Political, (see Political 

Patriotism, 162; Marx's view, 
239; Chapter XVTI 

" Paul Revere's Ride ", Long- 
fellow, 180 

Payment of members, 26; 45; 
not in German constitution, 

Peasants' Revolt, 24 

People, source of government. 
Constitution, 109, Preamble, 
115; 318-323 

Permanent alliances, 156, 282 

Peter the Great, 258, 260 

Petition for redress of Griev- 
ances, 25, 68, 86-87, 93 

Petition of Right, 37, 38, 64, 83, 

Petrograd, 260 

Philadelphia, 68, 72 
Philosophy of government, 319- 

Philippines, 289 

" Pioneers, oh Pioneers ", Whit- 
man, 184 
Pitt, William, Lord Chatham, 

43, 51, 67 
Pinckney, Charles, 99 
Plato, 318, 323 
Pocket boroughs, 43 
Poe, Edgar Allen, 178, 184 
Poland, at Congress of Vienna, 
205-206; in Austria-Hun- 
gary, 256; Partition, 260- 
Policy American Foreign (see 
Foreign Policy of United 
Political Parties, in England, 
45; in United States, 131- 
137; Federalist, 133; Anti- 
Federalist, 133; Democratic, 
133-135; Republican, 135; 
Small parties, 136; Tariff 
and parties, 142 
Political Rights, 308-309 
Polk's administration, 142 
Pomerania, 205 
"Poor Richard's Almanack", 

Franklin, 177 
Population of United States at 

beginning, 69 
Populist Party, 136 
Porto Rico, 286 

Portugal, 262, 271; Line of De- 
marcation, 290 
Power of appointment, presi- 
dent's, 122; German em- 
peror's, 223-224 
" Prairie, The ", Bryant, 178 
"Prayer of Columbus, The," 84 
Preamble to Constitution, The, 
quoted, 115 



"Present Crisis, The," Lowell, 
quoted, 182; 250 

President of the United States, 
title, 107-108, IGO; nation- 
ality, 116; importance and 
influence, 127-128; presi- 
dents since 1885, 135 

President's Message, 128 

Presidential Primaries, 135 

Principles of Just Government, 

Principles of prize law, 293 

Princeton, 96, 99 

Privileges of Parliament, 26; of 
legislative bodies, 233 

Prime Minister, 48 

Printed Ballots, 45, 46, 133 

Problems of Present, 330 

Progressive Party, 135 

Proletariat, 229 

" Property is theft ", 241 

Property qualifications, 26; base 
of English suffrage, 50 

Property rights, due process of 
law, 306; amendment XIV 

Providence, Rhode Island, 60 

Provisions of Oxford, 23 

Proudhon, 241 

Prussia, (see Germany) at 
Congress of Vienna, 205; 
Rise, 214; Constitution of 
1849, 217; Government, 
224-226; suffrage, 225; cen- 
ter of German Empire, 227; 
Danzig, 260 

Pure Food Laws, loose con- 
struction, 121 


Qaudruple Alliance (Holy Alli- 
ance), 165, 284 

Quartering of Troops, 83, 306- 

Queen Anne, 42 


Races in Austria-Hungary, 256, 

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 35 

Randolph, Edmund, 99 

Recall, 129-130 

Recent Writers, 185 

Reciprocity with Canada, 143 

Recognition, of United States, 
69; as a foreign policy, 279; 
of South American Repub- 
lics, 284 

Red Terror, 202 

Redress of Grievances, 25; 68, 
86-87, 93 

Referendum, 129-130 

Reform Acts, England, 44, 209; 
46; 50 

Reformation, The Protestant, 
30; 32; 320 

Reichstag, (see German Govern- 

Reign of Terror, 200-203; Pur- 
pose, 202 

Religion, persecution for: James 
I, 36; Charles I, 38-41 ; Irish 
Parliament, 44; Quakers, 
44; in Georgia, 62; Tolera- 
tion; Maryland, Rhode Is- 
land, New York, 60-61; 
Western States, 146; United 
States Constitution, 301; 
Socialism, 237-238; 249 

Renewal of Magna Charta, 22; 

Renewal of Foundation Prin- 
ciples, 321 

Republic, definitions, 114; con- 
stitution, 117; will of peo- 
ple, 287 

Republican Party, 134-135 
Reply to Hayne, 170, 176 
Representation, England, 43; 



Reichstag, 223; Landtag, 

Residence Qualifications, 308 

Responsibility, Ministerial, be- 
ginning, 24-25; lack in U. S., 
125-126; Supplied by Presi- 
dent's leadership, 128; Not 
in German Constitution, 
220; Chancellor, 223-224; 
Necessity for it, 345 

Restoration of Stuarts, 40-41; 

Revolution, American (see 
American Revolution) 

Revolution, French (see French 

Revolution of 1688, 41-42 

Revolutions of 1830, 208-209 

Revolutions of 1848, 209-211 

** Revolutionary Catechism," 
241; quotation, 242 

Revolutionary Theories and 
Movements, 234-249; neces- 
sity for studying them, 234 ; 
socialism, 236-240; anar- 
chism, 241-243; syndicalism, 
243; I. W. W." ism, 213, 
245; effect of repression, 

Rhode Island, charter, religion, 
60; trade, 72; not fit Consti- 
tutional Convention, 101 ; 
tariflF, 139-140 

Richard II, 24 

Right, to petition, 43, 166; of 
popular assembly to raise 
revenue, 115; to assemble, to 
free speech, to free press, 
93, 117; of search, 292-294; 
of people to reform or 
abolish government, 321 

Rights, to trial by jury, 29, 66; 
natural, 50; property, 50; 
immemorial, 66; of neutrals, 
293; guaranteed, 301; civil, 

305-308; political, 308-309; 
undetermined, 307; "of 
Englishmen," 320 

Riis, Jacob, 42 

Riley, James Whitcomb, 185 

" Rip Van Winkle", Irving, 179 

Rivalry, of European Powers, 
264-265 ; between France 
and Spain in North Amer- 
ica, 270; between England 
and Germany, 272-273 

" Robert of Lincoln ", Bryant, 

Robespierre, 201 

Robin Hood Tales, 17 

Roman Empire, 13; 212; 318 

Roosevelt, Theodore, 127; 128; 

Rotation in Office, 121 ; spoils 
system, 122-123; in West, 

Rotten Boroughs, 43; 45 

Roumania, 264 

Rousseau, 321 

Runnymede, 21 ; in quotation, 
77; 88 

Russell, "Lord" John, 44; 51 

Russia, 258-261 ; desire for. sea- 
port, 259; "digesting fron- 
tiers," 260; in 1914, 271; 
Russia and the Soviet, 245; 
Japanese Russian War, 267- 
268; dispute with I'^nited 
States, 284; China, 298 

Rutledge, John, 99 

Ryan, Father, " Southern Poet,'' 

St. Just, 201 
St. Petersburg, 258 
Sabotage, 244 
Sacredness of life, 325 
Somaliland, 270 



San Martin, 283 

Sanctity of Home, 325 

Sardinia, 205 

Saxons {see Anglo-Saxon) 

"Scarlet Letter, The", Haw- 
thorne, 183 

Schools, Common, Latin, 58; 
Labor, 148, 149-150; Ger- 
man, 232 

Schoolmen, philosophy of gov- 
ernment, 319-320 

Schuyler, 157 

Schurz, Carl, 280 

Scotland, Union with England, 
42; representation, 45 

Scutage, 28 

Secession, War of, 75 

Second Empire, France, 252 

Second Reform Act, England, 

Secret diplomacy. Congress of 
Vienna, 204-207; in Europe, 
267; cause of Great War, 

Secretary of State, J. Q. Adams, 
284-286; Bryan, 293; John 
Hay, 299 

Security Personal, 305-306 

Sedan, 252 

Sedition Act, 162 

Self-determination, 65; lack of, 
220-229; American ideal, 

Self-government in Colonics, 55, 

"Self-Reliance", Emerson, 181 

Senate, United States, a com- 
promise, 105; Impeachment, 
106; Usefulness, 107; popu- 
lar election, 118; contrast 
with German senate, 222; 
(see chapters V and VT) 

Separation of Powers, 106, 107 

Serajevo, 274 

Serbia, 258, 264 

Sherman, Roger, 100, 107 

Sheriff, 16, 27 

Ship-money, 28, 38, 68 

Siberia, 260 

Signers of Constitution, 110 

Signers of Declaration, 87, 92, 

Silicia, 256 

Simon de Montfort, 22-23 

Sovereignty, Theory of, German, 
229; Philosophers, 318-321; 
American, 321-323 

Slav Peril, 258 

Slave Trade, 105^ 138 

Slavery, 137-139; introduced, 5C; 
in Constitution, 105; Thir- 
teenth Amendment, 118; 
political aspect, 134-138; 
Abolition movement,, 138 ; 
Northwest Ordinance, 160; 
Whittier, 181 

Slovaks, 256 

Slovenes, 258 

Slavonia, 258 

"Snowbound", Whittier, 181 

" Social Contract ", 321 

Socialist Party in U. S., 134 

Socialism, 236-240; socialism to- 
day, 246 ; quotations, 248- 

Songs and ballads of the Rev- 
olution, 177 

"Song of Marion's Men", 178 

Sons of Liberty, 66, 148 

Source of Government, Saxon 
times, 14-15; King, 20, 26; 
Parliament, 41-42; Barons, 
80; in the United States, 71 ; 
Declaration of Independ- 
ence, 86, 93; in Germany, 
Bundesrat, 222; in Russia, 
Czar, 261 ; in a Republic, the 
people, 319-324 

South America, Break with 
Spain, 280, 284; Leaders, 



283; Canning's help, 284; 
sketch map, 285; policy of 
United States toward, 288- 
289; numerous revolutions, 

vSouth Carolina, 169 

South Hesse, 220 

Sovereignty of the people, 71; 
St. Augustine, 319-320; 
Aquinas, 320; Hobbes, 
Hooker, Locke, 321; Vir- 
ginia Bill of Rights, 321; 
Declaration of Independ- 
ence, 322; Constitution, 322; 
Marshall, 322-323; Lincoln, 
323; Wilson, 333 

Soviet, The, 245 

Spain, 179, 180, 262, 263, 291 

Spanish Armada, 28 

Sparticus Group, 246 

Speaker of House of Commons, 
125; Representatives, 125 

" Spy, The ", Cooper, 179 

Stamp Act, The, 66-67 

Star Chamber Court, 33, 36, 38 

Strassburg, 251 

State Church, 301 

State Constitutions, 71, 167 

State Insurance, 231 

State ownership, 239 

State, Theory of, German, 229; 
American, 324 

States, The, Article IV of the 
Constitution. 117; 124 

States Rights, 114, 159, 160 

Statute of 1429, 27 

Statute of Religious Freedom, 
quotation, 234 

Statutes, beginning, 25; annul- 
ment, 28 

Styria, Styrians, 258 

Stuart Period, 35-42 

Suez Canal, 270, 295 

Suffrage, in early England, 14- 
15; 27-28; extended, 44; 

bases, 50; in Massachusetts, 
58, 59, 69; Constitution, 74; 
woman suffrage, 74, 75, 118; 
changes, 75; western states, 
146; Negroes, 139, 148, 198; 
granted to women in Nor- 
way, 225; control, 302; citi- 
zenship and suffrage, 304; 
exclusive from, 308; Res- 
idence qualifications, 308 

" Summary View of the Writers 
of America ", Jefferson, 176 

Supreme Court, 106, 116, 119, 

Surplus Value, 237, 238 

Sweden, 262 

Switzerland, 205, 211, 242 

Taft, President, 128; 135; 143 

" Tales of a Traveller," Irving, 

" Tales of a Wayside Inn,' 
Longfellow, 180 

Tariff, The, 134; 1817, 133; 139- 
145; First proposed meas- 
ure, 139; for protection and 
revenue, 140; 1816 for pro- 
tection, 140; of abomina- 
tions, 141; Compromise of 
1833, 142; Low tariff, 142; 
Issue 1870-1911, 142; Mc- 
Kinley, 142; substitutes, 
142; reciprocity, 143 

Taxes, Saxon times, Danegeld, 
17; 28; control, 29; 41; 66; 
115; illegal, 33; Charles 1, 
37; Income Tax, 118; 142; 
in France, 192; Napoleon's 
distribution, 204; in Ger- 
many, 222; in Prussia, 225; 
in Austria-Hungary, 256; 
Peter the Great and the 



Russian peasants, 258; in 
England, 272 

Tarkington, Booth, 185 

" Terror, The," 202, 241 

Texas, 286, 288 

" Thanatopsis," Bryant, ITS 

Theory of State, German, 229- 
231; American, 324 

Third Republic, France, 252 

Tigris and Euphrates, 270 

"To a Fringed Gentian," Bry- 
ant, 178 

" To a Waterfowl," Bryant, 178 

Togoland, 271 

Tonnage and poundage, 28 

Town Meeting, 58 

Township, 58 

Tories, in England, 41; in Col- 
onies, 66 

Treason, defined, 116 

Triple Alliance, 267; 274 

Triple Entente, 267 

Tudors, 32 

Turkey, 264 

Twain, Mark, 183 

"Twice Told Tales," Haw- 
thorne, 183 


ognized^ 69; see chapters V, 

University of Virginia, 151, 160 
University of Berlin, 229 
"Unredeemed Italy" (Italia Ir- 
redenta), 206 
" Unspeakable Turk," 265 
Utopian socialism, 236 


Venezuela, protected by United 
States, 328 

Victoria's reign, 45 

Virginia, beginnings, 36; 56; 
state seal, 57; in Revolution, 
58; 66; Committee of Cor- 
respondence, 67; State Con- 
stitution, 84; at Constitu- 
tional Convention, 96; Vir- 
ginia Plan, 103; Nullifica- 
tion, 163 

" Vision of Sir Launfal," Lowell, 

Von Treitschke, theory of state, 

Voter's Training, A, 310 

Voting open, 225 

" Ukase ", of czar, 284 

Ulster, 36 

" Ulysses ", 180 

" Uncle Sam," National Hero, 

" Uncle Tom's Cabin," 180 

Union, Act of (England and 
Ireland), 44 

Union of Scotland and England, 

Union, The, Washington's Fare- 
well Address, 157; Jackson, 
169; Webster, 170; Lincoln, 
171; 172 

United States, set up and rec- 


Wage System, 244 

War Debts, France, 253 

War, The Great, 274 

War of Roses, 30, 32 

War of 1812, 131; 141; freedom 

of seas, 292 
War Franco-Prussian (see 

Franco-Prussian War) 
" Warning, The," Longfellow, 

Washington, Booker T., 310 
Washington, George, family, 

56; commander-in-chief, 69; 



constitutional convention, 
97; 104; 105; abuse, 109; 
president, 111 ; cabinet, 121; 
general sketch, 155-158; pa- 
triotic labors, 156; farewell 
address, 156-158; quota- 
tions, 280-281; neutrality, 
281 ; on permanent alliances, 

Wat Tyler's Rebellion, 57 

Waterloo, 203 

Ways and Means, Congressional 
Committee, 126 

Webster, Daniel, on tariff, 141; 
169-171; reply to Hayne, 
169; 176; Whittier on Web- 
ster, 181 ; quotation on 
French Revolution, 188; 
Kossuth, 280-281 ; quotation 
from Bunker Hill address, 

Wellington, 215 

Western Authors, 185 

"Western Lands", 71-74 

Westward Movement, 74-75 ; 

Whigs (in England), 40 

Whig Party ( in United States), 

White Terror, 202 

Whittier, John G., 181; quota- 
tion, 300 

Whitman, Walt, 183; quotation, 

Wilhelmstrasse, 253 

William I of England, 19 

William I of Prussia, 219; Em- 
peror of Germany, 251-252 

William II of German Empire, 

William and Mary, 41 

Williams, Roger, 60 

W^ilson, James, 99, 109 

Wilson, Woodrow, 128, 135; 
tariff, 143; quotation, 77, 
316; Cabinet, (illustration), 
317; Ideals of World Peace, 

Winthrop, Governor, 59 

" Witness, The," Longfellow, 181 

Woman, an alien by marriage, 

Woman suffrage, 74, 118, 119 

Writers (American) influence, 

Writs of Assistance, 176 

Written Constitution, First, 60 

Wurtemburg, 220 


012 052 044 1 




'ii.i t') 1,1,1 ).l!).i,l.i.'<!: 


1 1 



')'\Ki ',').M I'l'i'ti'i iiiiijiiiiniiTlJfliKi'' 

! lllit.titil.