JW' . Bfr ' T
%
! >
'Cbe Conservative *
THE DECLARATION OF INDE
PENDENCE.
The social evolution of the English-
speaking people is marked by three
great historic documents , the Magna
Oharta , the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution of theUnited States.
Of these three the constitution is in
comparably the greatest. Rightly un
derstood the constitution is founded in
the most fundamental of natural con
ditions. The public life of Thomas
Jefferson is also marked by three great
acts. Stated in the order of their im
portance these are , the law for the disenfranchisement -
enfranchisement of an established
church and for freedom of religion and
the press in Virginia in the constitu
tion also the Louisiana Purchase and
last , the Declaration of Independence.
To many this may seem rank heresy ,
but to any such it may be said that the
number of Americans who have given
serious and critical thought either to the
declaration or the constitution , in the
present generation , including congress
men , can probably be counted on the
fingers of one hand. The number who
are competent to is very small. A great
jurist once said that the declaration was
nothing but a mass of glittering gener
alities.
It is even worse than that. Its es
teemed fundamentals are gross miscon
ceptions without foundation in fact.
Not only are they gross they are mis
leading and socially dangerous errors.
The declaration is one of those docu
ments in which the letter killeth while
the spirit which gave it birth still gives
it vitality. In point of fact it was a
wonderful stroke of genius. Jefferson
word-focused the desire of the people
and marshalled them around the idea of
freedom , inspiring them with the deter
mination to establish and maintain a
free and independent government. But
when he said "These colonies are , and
of right ought to be free and indepen
dent states , " he uttered as absurd a
statement as did the United States sen
ate when it made the same kind of a
declaration in relation to Onba , where
the people are , and will remain , under
the despotic control of the United States
until the majority have either been
buried or been driven to the main laud
of South America. What an absurdity
for the fathers to have declared , "these
colonies are free ; " and then "of righi
they ought to be free" for if free there
could be no "ought" about it. It took
eight years of hard fighting to show
whether these colonies "ought to be
free" or not. They were free when
they demonstrated the might to make
themselves free , and to maintain
themselves as a free and independen
people. Not before ! The Cubans have
not that might. They never will have
No Celtic people have ever been , free
and independent. No people but th
Angles ever have shown that ability
| TEe Saxons have not. yet * shown it. Th
, r
> eoplo of the United States will main-
ain themselves as a free republic only
o long as the Anglo-influence main-
wins the ascendency. Heterogeneity is
a terrible danger to freedom in the
Juited States. It will bo found far
osier to citizenize in the constitutional
ban to Anglicize in the hereditary
ense. Heterogeneous immigration is
iable to swamp Anglican freedom in
his country. The absurd assertion that
'these colonies are free" when they
were not finds its foundation in another
absurdity expressed in the declaration
; hat "we hold these truths to be self-
evident , that all men are created equal ;
ihat they are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights ; that
among these are life , liberty and the
mrsuit of happiness. " The absurdity
consists in the unfounded assumption
of a natural right.
The idea of a natural right is part and
mrcel of another prevalent error of the
'days of ' 76 , " an original "social com-
iact. " Both errors form the basis of
Etousseauism. Jefferson seems to have
adopted these errors without reserva and
have been a political John the Bap
tist to make straight their path on
American soil. Never were words
truer than that the way is straight and
wide the path that leadeth to destruot-
tiou than in relation to the assumption
of a natural right and original social
compact based on that right. The evi
dence thereof is to be found in the
French revolution , the Secession war ,
and the social discontent and anarchistic
threateniugs of today. The assumption
of a natural right finds its emphatic con
tradiction in the fact that though "the
united colonies declared themselves free
and independent , " they were not so ;
that they had no right to a free and in
dependent life , to liberty , or to pursue
happiness as they pleased , until they
had made themselves "free and inde
pendent state * " by their might. In
other words , freedom is impossible un
less the individual , or a people , have the
might to make and maintain themselves
free. The United States can never
give to the Cubans and Filipinos a free
and independent government. Such
things cannot be given. Hence , free
and independent governments cannot
exist with "the consent of the gov
erned. " Such governments are made ,
not accepted. The assumption of a nat
ural right , on which is based the as
sertion of the inalienable rights to life ,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness and
the equality of all men is in direct con
tradiction to the most universal of all
natural conditions ; the so-called para
mount law of Nature , the survival of
the fittest.
If there is one "truth" that should be
"self-evident" it is that all men are not
created with an inalienable right to
life. No right is possible without the
might to make and maintain it. Might
is right. Might that is wrong is impos-
Bible. Were "all men endowed by their
Creator" with an inalienable and equal
right to life then all men would bo
equal in might to maintain life at time
of birth , and all would either live eter
nally , or die on the same day. The
"survival of the fittest" would bo null ,
at least , so far as man is concerned.
Some fools are trying to nullify it.
Taking the present standard of fitness ,
self-maintaining usefulness to others ,
and considering the number who have
that degree of fitness at maturity ,
say 21 , and maintain it through life , and
comparing them with those that are born
dead , those who die in infancy ,
youth , and along the course of maturer
years and those who have not . the
might to maintain themselves , includ
ing thousands who are supported by
others or at the public expense , the ut
ter absurdity of a natural right to any
thing , and the fundamentals of the
Declaration of Independence , should bo
"self-evident. "
"There are none so blind as those who
will not see. "
FRANK S. BILLINGS.
Grafton , Mass.
CONSERVATIVE -
A PAMPHLET. THf
TIVE has a copy of
a very rare pamphlet entitled "The
Biter Bitten. " It was published some
years since in a controversy with The
New York Daily Sun and its able editor ,
Charles A. Dana. By request , if space
can be spared , portions of that pamphlet
may during the coming year bo republished -
lished in THE CONSERVATIVE.
The methods of some metropolitan
journals may thus become familar to
their readers in the West.
THE KEAVAKD OIT A1JILITY.
The great leaders of industry in this
country are terribly hardworking men.
They may get large monetary returns
for their efforts , but with many of them
this is obtained by such an all-absorbing
devotion to their various industrial pro
jects that they are constantly 011 the
verge of a physical or mental collapse.
The late President Thomson of thp. , .
Peuusylvania railroad began at the bo tt .
torn and worked his way to the top o
the greatest railway system in the coun- '
try. There was nothing about a railroad - !
road that ho did not know , but more
remarkable still is the fact that ho
learned it all in the service of the Penn
sylvania company. It took him thirty-
eight years to do it. In that time ho
rose from a shop hand to the presidency ,
and his motive power was his pluck and
persistence.
Has such a man no right to the results
of his labor ? The socialists and com
munists say "No 1" that all that man
had ability given him for was to work & I
to keep alive the sloths and drones of
the human bee-hivo.