-JiUVP.MWimftlil.V
The Commoner.
.MARCH 19, 190
5
solid west (I. e. north and central-west) because
the west lias been settled by a great variety of
people and its population is too hetercgeneous
to be solid. But from the days of the colonies
until now there have been distinct types of
people in both New England and the south, and
for the most natural reasons, therefore, they
have been solid.
For one I believe that it is best they should
be "solid." By their solidity they work out
for themselves the best results, and at the same
time they thereby make the best contribution
to the well-being of the entire country. In a
land which is filling up with multitudes of mis
cellaneous people from every part of the globe
it is vastly important that in one or two sections
at least there should be some stable forms of
life and civilization.
The south especially possesses certain charac
teristics which should be perpetuated at all cost.
They are of the utmost value to the republic,
and they must not be minimized or modified.
In the south is found the purest type of what
may be called original Americanism. Among
its people are more men and women who trace
their descent directly to colonial sires than in
any other section of the union. Its social forms
and domestic life, as well as its architecture,
tend naturally to the colonial type, and they
should not be exchanged for any other.
Its religious life is orthodox in creed and evan
gelical in spirit. The variegated and eccentric
ecclesiastical bodies which abound in New Eng
land have but a small and negligible following
in the south. Southern Christianity has hot
been weakened by sending forth from its roots
all sorts of isms, which like suckers weaken
the main stem without producing any good fruit
themselves. We have had few heresy trials,
for we have had few heretics. Our people have
accepted the Bible as the word of God, and have
relied for salvation upon the atonement of
Jesus Christ the Lord. By consequence the
southern churches have more nearly succeeded
in winning the whole population of the south to
Christian living than have the churches of the
other sections of the country succeeded with
the people to whom they make their appeals.
There are more church members in the south
in proportion to population than can be found
in any other part of the United States.
In the south wo have also the best observance
of the Sabbath, and insofar as we have anywise
fallen from grace In this important matter our
fall may bo traced to influences which have
come in upon us from without. If we had re
mained more "solid" with respect to the ob
servance of the Sabbath we would have done
far better than we have by following, even for
a little .way, modish vice and foreign airs.
The south is the soberest part of the United
States. There are fewer bar-rooms among us
and fewer people who want bar-rooms than are
found in New England or the west. Prohibi
tion counts for more id the south than it does
in any other sections of the union.
Therg -are als$ fewer grafters and less graft
in the soifth than, any other sections. Pennsyl
vania; :the land of William Penn and great
solidity, has shown more corruption in the build
ing of her capitol and the government of one
city of Pittsburg than has been known in all
the south during a half-century. - The southern
people have not been without their faults, but
they have been remarkably free from the cow
ardly, sneakish vice of stealing. Public officials
in the south have not been given to pilfering
public funds.
Many other characteristic excellencies . of the
southern people might be enumerated, but let
these, suffice, for the present. Is it proposed
that we shall change our principles with respect
to these or any other matters? If so, why?
Have our principles been demonstrated to be
unsound? If so, in what particular? If we
are to renounce our principles what set of prin
ciples shall we put in their place? Has New
England anything better to teach us? Is the
land of the Pilgrim Fathers to maintain an un
yielding solidity while the south is to break up
into classes of convenient size for instruction
by New England? Let New England show more
Christianity, more children, a better observance
of Sunday, less drunkenness, and less graft be
fore we sit humbly at her feet for Instruction.
We might have learned much from the New
England of the Pilgrim Fathers, but we can
learn little of value from the New England of
their back-slidden children.
But it may be said that we must change our
view of the relative powers of the state and
federal governments. This is not the time for
that. It is true our picturesque president has
assurod the country that "we need through
executive action, through legislative action, and
through judicial interpretation and construction
of law, to increase the power of the federal gov
ernment;" but at the risk of initiation into the
"Ananias Club," or classification with the "un
desirable citizens," wo are bound to tell him
such talk Is perfidy to his official oath. Ho
swore to support the constitution, not to stretch
it; and secession against the constitution is
worse than secession against the union; for the
union draws its life from the constitution. The
union without the constitution Is not the federal
union, but the organized tyranny of an unscrupu
lous majority doing as they wist with the rights
of the minority. If the federal government re
quires more power to fulfill its mission under
the conditions of the present day, there are
easy and constitutional ways of giving to it such
power; but it does not belong to the executive,
legislative, or judicial branches of the govern
ment to filch power from the states or from
the people even though they purloin it In order
to lay it in the lap of the federal government.
But does the federal government need so
much more power? It is said that there is
going on in our country a perilous concentration
of wealth in the hands of a few. Suppose wo
centralize the government at the same time this
process of concentrating wealth goes on, and
that eventually the concentrated wealth seizes
the centralized government. What, then, would
become of the rights of the people? What would
be done would simply be a question of what
might be desired by the men wielding this im
mense combination of financial and political
power. If they failed to find precedents for their
usurpations they could plead the illustrious ex
ample of our present president, and call for the
enlargement of the powers of the federal gov
ernment by "executive action," "legislative ac
tion," and "judicial interpretation and construc
tion of law." Doubtless, however, they would
not stop for even that much formality of law.
Under the lead of the president's rough-riding
example the limit of their power would bo only
the limit of their desires.
Moreover, expansion of- territory demands
more and more the shifting of weight from the
federal government to the local governments of
the states. Otherwise the strain on the center
will become too great and the whole structure
will crumble. The security of the union Is in
the sovereignty of the states.
This is certainly no time for the south to
cease contending for the strict observance of
the constitutional limitations imposed upon the
federal government. A surreptitious revolu
tion is proposed, and it must be resisted as vig
orously as if it were an armed force attempting
to subvert the government. Let us stand Bolidly
against it, and if any other section wishes to
stand with us we shall not object. But if any
other sections of the country invito us to abjure
our devotion to the fundamental principles of
the government in order to obtain political
spoils in the form of office and appropriations
let us give them to understand that neither we
nor our fathers have been accustomed to accept
bribes.
It should also be said that our long estab
lished view of the tariff Is not to be surrendered.
With possibly one exception the professors of
political economy in every respectable college
and university In America, (the experts on this
subject) unite with us in our unwavering opposi
tion to protection. I am not sure that there
is one exception, but I understand that in the
university cf Pennsylvania the heresy of pro
tection is entrenched. The location of such in
struction discloses its inspiration. Why should
we renounce what is demonstrably correct?
Certain protectionists are fond of calling them
selves the "standpatters;" very well, if they can
stand pat for an erroneous economic? dogma we
may well stand: pat for a sound economic principle-
The truth is,, the system of protection
is not founded in reason nor based on righteous
ness;" it is maintained by trading and mutual
concessions' among the representatives in con
gress of clamant and domineering interests. To
employ the taxing power of the government to
enrich certain Interests at the expense of all
the people comes dangerously near robbery un
der the guise of legislation. .It Is utterly puerile
to say such a system is necessary in order to
maintain the wages of the laboring man. Who
shall make the protected manufacturer, who
has not scrupled to rob all the people, divide
his spoils with his employes? Wages are not
thus determined. And even if it were true that
protection raises wages, it is also true that it
raises the expenses of the laborer more, and
thereby it reduces the amount of his net income.
Wo have nothing to tako back as to the tariff.
If other sections wish to unlto with us in em
bodying In law the sound and honest views
which wo havo held on this subject, wo will
welcome their association and assistance But
if they unite with us in our contentions, what
then will becomo of their own solidarity, con
cerning tho dissolving of which wo hear nothing?
Other subjects might bo brought forward, but
I forbear for tho present. Lot mo Inqulro with
reference to tho matters horoin presented and
other Issues which naturally suggest them
selves, what principle, or set of principles, which
havo operated as cohesive forces to make the
south solid in her place, as New England is
solid in her place, is it now proposed that wo
shall renounce? If wo all go together Into somo
now movement, will wo not bo as solid as ovor?
If wo divide, will wo bo happier and more har
monious among ourselves and moro influential
with other sections by reason of tho strife which
division will engender? Wore any peoplo ovor
made moro powerful or prosperous by discord?
Wily onemies havo been known to pursue tho
policy of dividing a people In order to conquer
them, but those who havo most faithfully re
sisted the foes of peoples thus threatened havo
always insisted that their security was their
unity.
I tako it no Trojan horse will bo admitted
within our gates. Our people may gaze on such
devices with a certain sort of Interest, but they
will not bo so simplo as not to boo that the con
tents of tho animal are something more war
like than grass.
I beg to commend to careful consideration of
all concerned tho following paragraph which
'I have extracted from ono of tho most ably con
ducted papers in tho south:
"That the south is dissimilar from other parts
of the republic in important social, political,
and religious matters Is a proposition too plain
to be disputed for a moment. That these differ
ences are radical, historic, and persistent it
would be easy to show. That they are to tho
advantage of our section is a belief that wo
hold without asking leave or license of any. Tho
south is tho social, political, and religious resid
uary legatee of American civilization. Its day
is coming; indeed, is now. It has no need to
fret, or to be impatient of fortune; for it holds
the illuminating lamp of the future of our na
tional life. Only wo must preserve our vantage
and push our way toward a complete realiza
tion of our historic Ideals. Nor must wo be In
haste to give up either our solidarity or our
isolation. This may seem a reactionary or non-'
progressive sentiment, but it is neither. Both
the solidarity and the isolation of peculiar peo
ples have been employed of history and Provi-
dence In hastening tho world's better destinies.
This isolation and solidarity is no barrier to
intercourse and co-operation in all common en
terprises, but it is that eclecticism of peoplo
which puts their exceptional IdealB above tho
thought of compromise or accommodation. Tho
South can agree to no coalescences, ecclesiasti
cal or otherwise, that will for a moment jeop
ardize its ideals."
That is what might bo called "Interestln'
readinV It is also quite suggestive. Southern
courtesy and hospitality must not be mistaken
for the renunciation of southern convictions.
It may be added that the task of breaking up
the "solid south" will not be found an easy one.
The unifying processes of more than a century
are not arrested and turned backward In a day.
Blood and tradition, ancestry and history, tho
compacting power of war and tho solidifying
struggles of peace, common interests and com
mon dangers, common memories and common,
hopes, count for something; and all these things
must be reckoned with when men undertake to
hreak up the "solid south." Where will they
find a solvent powerful enough to disintegrate
in a moment what has been forming for moro
than a century? Can the seductive wooings of
an artful partisanism put asunder those whom
Providence bath bo manifestly joined together?
Can the. crafty pleadings of a thrifty expediency
compass such an. end? Can the saccharine
.sentiments which are -wont to flow around ban-,
quoting boards dissolve the affiliations of gen
erations? Hardly.
The "new south" is just the "old south" go
ing on its way and "happy on the way." If
any civil person Is traveling the same road tho
south has no objection to his company, but It
Is not bowed down beneath an Insupportable,
sense of desolation and lonesomeness. Its
happiness is not dependent upon the presence
(Continued on Page 6)
iif"llirtfirlH- it-- "-S mimiur'&ttt 7m.-,t-
yJE JftUfc. , X .... aJtm&. .Afe;
... vJZj. .KJ- ...... .' .
.vX i i ...
'J.j,, . M