v t- m "-jr,a
Frviini-5wtj
Tfr -p'f'F-' f
The Commoner.
JTJLT 24, 190S.
J
The Keystone of the Republic
ADDKKSS DKI.IVEKED UY HOK.
IIOWAIII 8. TAYJ.OK OK CHICAGO
at niK Fouimi ov .tui,y cklk-
BiiATiON It ISM at VAIIIIBW IWmk
TIIK AU8ITCK8 OF thm ITAIHVIKW
J15FFKIUJON CL.UU.
Fellow Citizens: On the second day of Jiily,
1776, tho Continental Congress passed the first
Informal declaration of Independence. On the
following day John Adams said in a letter to his
wife :
"The second day of July, 1776, will bo a
momorable epoch in the history of America,
I am apt to believo that it will be celebrated
by succeeding generations, as the groat An
niversary Festival. It ought to be commemor
ated as tho day of deliverance by solemn acts
of devotion, to God Almighty. It ought to
bo solemnized with pomp, shows, gauges,
sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations
from one end of the continont to the other,
from this time forward forever."
Adams missed his prediction by only two
days! . Tho fourth of July, tho day that witnessed
tho more formal utterance of independence, for
tho past century and a quarter has been cele
brated by all tho solemn and joyous exercises
which the old patriot suggested.
From time to timo new accessions of terri
tory and population, and new achievements of our
nation, in war and peace, have invited increased
enthusiasm in the celebration of this anniversary
until tho day has become a sort of ML Pelee in
tho midst of the year. Doubtless a great deal
of this is the mero effervescence of a holiday
spirit firecrackers and fustian glad to escape in
to open air. But to serious persons the occa
sion has always been serious and thero aro somo
reasons why this present Fourth of July should
command a more thoughtful attention than any
preceding one for many years; because not only
havo new and portentous problems in industry,
commerce and government arisen In our midst,
but because from many respectable and influential
quarters, from universities, colleges, pulpits and
tho printing presses of a wide constituency a spirit
of tory skepticism has, with increasing daring and
dexterity, attacked the Declaration of Indepen
dence, itself. I do not mean to say that they
question that part of the Declaration which sched
ules King George's sins for King George Is dead
and is no longer able to confer a title, grant a
concession or admit an American tourist to a royal
reception and he is altogether so inert that no
American born Briton can find any interest in
him either compound or simple!
Neither do they complain of independence, it
self, though, doubtless, there are hundreds of
wise men in our coal oil colleges who could wish
that "tho two great branches of tho Anglo-Saxon
. race" were reunited and tho capital established at
London!
No! The incurable contention that a hun
dred, years ago separated Hamilton from Jeffer
son, the old-new issue, when reduced to its low
est terms was simply Hamiltonian repugnance to
the Jeffersoniau doctrine that "all men are cre
ated equal, that they are endowed by their Cre
ator with certain inalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi
ness, that to secure these rights governments aro
instituted among men deriving their just powers
from tho consent of the governed." That was
the doctrine rejected by Hamilton a hundred
years ago, and that is the political postulate which
reviving Hamiltonianism rejects today. They do
not "believe that all men are created with equal
rights to life, liberty and happiness, and, there
fore, they do not believe that all men have a right
to self-government Tho tories of today aro re
employing the shibboleth, used by tho tories a
hundred and thirty years ago. They talk- with,
increasing boldness about superior and inferior
races and of the duty oflhe former to take care
of tho latter. They have discovered a new quali
fication for citizenship "social efficiency!" Men,
they say, should havo power according to their
"social efficiency!" They speak easily of classes
and confidently measure their relative worth with
a palpable preference for tho "upper classes,"
"tho intelligent classes," "the moneyed classes,"
etc AIL around tho circle our new tories, with
a vanity hungry "from long fasting, are cultivat
ing the spirit and imitating the genuflexions of the
European aristocracy sometimes even going to
tho length of expatriating themselves in order to
cross tho. sea and. crawl gratefully into the sooth
ing shades of a throne! Most offensive of all
aro their snobbish excuses for rejecting tho wis
dom of tho fathers. They tell us that tho fathers,
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and tho
rest, wore good men and oven wise men In a
narrow, provincial manner; but that, in tho
primitive conditions in which thoy were placed,
they could havo no experience which would cntitlo
them to advise the America of today; and .that,
upon the whole, their political ideas and ex
pressions were merely glittering generalities, flung
out in tho hysterical excitation of a great con
flict, and wore not Intondcd to bo taken too ex
actly. That they were mere war rhetoric and
cannot bo made to square with tho scientific,
practical knowledge of today!
Ah, my friends, with what patience must wo
hear those tinkling cadets of modern commercial
ism making estimates of tho fathers of tho re
public! Lord Chatham, himself ono of tho greAt
cst minds of his century, long ago gave an esti
mate of tho fathers worthy of attention. Ho
said:
"Tho congress is tho. most honorable as
sembly of statesmen since those of tho ancient
Greeks and Romans in the most virtuous
times. They were most of them profound
scholars and studied tho history of mankind
that they might know men. They were so
familiar with tho lives and thoughts of tho
wisest and best minds of the past that a
classic aroma hangs about their writings and
speeches; and they were profoundly con
vinced of what statesmen know and mere poli
ticians never perceive that Ideas aro tho lifo
of a people that the conscience, not tho
pocket, Is tho real citadel of a nation."
There is not one word of exaggerated eulogy in
these words of tho great Jtltt Read again if you
pleaso the literature of tho revolutionary times,
tho letters, speeches and state papers of tho
fathers, and you will say with mo that they aro
still tho masterpieces of American political
thought Tho fathers wero wise men; and so far
from being narrow and provincial they knew hu
man history and its lessons in a way that tho
corporation lawyers who havo sat In our recent
congresses never dreamed of. They kndw all
about wars of conquest from Cain and Abel's
timo down! They knew about the cunning of un
shackled greed ever since Esau and Jacob set an
example. They knew all about tho Villainies of
ambition, the struggles for freedom, the corrup
tions of wealth, tho rise of republics and the in
struments of their destruction; .and, with all this
wide erudition In hand, after long reflection and
debate, at the peril of their lives, and calling upon
God to witness tho purity of their intentions they
put into tho great charter of bur liberties, as Its
chief apothegm, the solemn declaration that all
men are created equal with tho inalienable rights
of lifo, liberty and happiness; and, in eight long
years of struggle in cabinet and field, that doc
trine was made tho keystone of tho republic and
the chief significance of Independence Day!
They did not affirm, and they did not mean
to affirm, tho self-evident error that all men are
created equal in personal powers and character
istics. Abraham Lincoln, himself a Jeffersonian
democrat (temporarily dislocated) gives us a brief
but conclusive exposition of this American doc
trine In equality. In his speech at Alton In 1858,
he said of tho Declaration of Independence:
"I think the authors of that notable in
strument intended to include all men; but they '
did not mean to declare all men equal in all
respects. Thoy did not mean to say that all
men were equal in color, size, Intellect, moral
development or social capacity. They defined
with tolerable distinctness in what they did
consider all men Created equal equal in cer
tain inalienable rights among which aro life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This
they said and this they meant"
But to obtain the most lucid and satisfac
tory definition of American equality we should go
to the author of the Declaration himself, Thomas
Jefferson, confident not only that he knew his own
mind, but that he, more than any other man of
his times, knew the minds of all the fathers." In
a letter to Washington in 1784 speaking of our
several constitutions of government, he said:
"Tho foundation on which all aro built is
tho natural equality of man, tho denial of ev
ery pro-eminonco but that annexed to legal
ofllco, and particularly tho denial of a pre
eminence by birth."
In a letter to George Hay, he said:
"An equal application of law to every
condition of man Is fundamental."
In a reply to an address, made In 1801, he
said:
"To unequal privileges among members of
tho samo socloty tho splr't of our nation Is
with ono accord advorse."
And in his letter to Gcorgo Flower, In 1817
he said:
"
"To special legislation wo aro generally
avcrso lest a principle of favoritism should
creep In and pervert that of equal rights."
There, then, is tho doctrlno of American equal
ity expounded by that great statoaman and pa
triot who penned It Into tho Declaration of Indc
pendonco ono uundrod and twenty-seven years
ago! Tho repudiation of all special legislation,
special privileges, and special omlnence, oxcopt
that of logal ofllcc; and tho impartial application
of law to all classes and conditions of men that
is tho doctrlnoas clear, salutary and fruitful aa
sunlight!
It would seem that a principle so reasonable,
so equitable and so self-evident, ought to rccolvo
Instant and universal acceptance; but, my fellow
cltlzons, tho most casual Inquiry "into the condi
tions of today will Inform us that wo havo al
ready drifted far from tho ancient standard; and
tho progress of cr departure dally grows swifter
and moro reckless. To make this more apparent
allow mo to point out some of the legitimate ex
tensions of the doctrlno and suggest some of the
particulars in which, we havo declined from tho
ancient faith.
Tho fathers declared the equal omlnonco and
dignity of all men under tho law.
They would have no magnates of any kind,
either by heredity, wealth, or force. The mo
mentary honora of public ofllclals woro balanced
by short periods of election at which public ser
vants doffed their dignities and laid them down
at tho feet of the people who were the real mas
ters! At every point tho fathers sought to safe
guard tho republic from tho foolish and ruinous
Infection of European aristocracy. Said Jeffer
son: "In America no other distinction between
man and man has ever been known but that
of persons In office exercising powers by au
thority of tho laws, and private Individuals.
Amongjhesc last, tho poorest laborer stood on
equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire,
and generally, on a raoro favored ono when
ever their rights seemed to jar."
Tho fathers, indeed, believed in a natural aris
tocracy" founded on virtue and intellect and dif-
fering radically from tho artificial aristocracy of
wealth and. birth; and they believed that the only
efficient way of finding out these real aristocrats,
men worthy to rule, was to throw open tho
schools, throw open tho avenues of all business
and political preferment, and to give every child
of Adam an equal chance with hJs neighbor to
develop and display all that is in him. The
fathers had before them somo striking examples
of tho artificial aristocracy of the "divine right'
rulers of men. Writing to Governor Langdon, la
1810, Jefferson said:
"While In Europe I often arnnsed myself v
with contemplating the characters of the then,
reigning sovereigns of Europe. Louis XVL
was a fool, of my own knowledge, and In de--; '
spite of the answers made for him at his trlaL '
The' king of Spain was a fool, and of Naples ,
tho same. They passed their lives hunting,.'
and dispatched two couriers a week, ono thou
sand miles, to 1-t each other know what gamo
they had killed the preceding days. Tho king
of Cardinia was a fool. The queen of Portugal,
a Braganza, was an idiot by nature, and so
was the king of Denmark, their sons, as re-i
gents, exercising the powers of government
h (Continued on Page 1L)
1
'i d t, ,t
""V