4 Conservative.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPEN
DENCE AND GOVERNMENT K\
CONSENT.
[ The following critical analysis of the
meaning of the Declaration of Indepen
dence was written for the Chicago Rec
ord by Professor Harry Pratt Judsou ,
of the University of Chicago : ]
The declaration of Independence has
of late been pressed into politics with
an interpretation which would amaze
the framers of the immortal document.
One would almost think that the Dec-
laration is a legal and not a political ,
instrument ; that it was intended as law ,
and not primarily to influence opinion ;
in ehort , that it is , like the constitu
tion , a part of the supreme law of the
land , and is to be applied therefore in
the exact and literal meaning of its
every word , so as to rule every proposed
policy. This has not heretofore been
the view taken by students of political
science. Indeed , until this time it
would be difficult to find any scholar
of authority who would risk his reputa
tion on such an interpretation. That
such interpretation was far from being
in the minds of the framers , and that
the American people as a whole have
never acted in accordance with such a
view of political philosophy , is a matter
which in other times than the present
would hardly seem to need serious dis
cussion.
"Governments , " said the congress of
1776 , "derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed ; " and now
we are told that that proposition must
be construed as true with literal exact
ness , and must be applied in that sense
to every case which may arise.
Did the framers so understand it ?
At the very time when Jefferson was
writing the Declaration slaves were
held in his own colony of Virginia and
in every other colony which united
with Virginia in the insurrection against
Great Britain. Did the government of
these slaves rest on their consent ? Did
the congress which voted the Declara
tion think for a moment that its doc
trines applied to negroes ? No doubt
we regard slavery as morally indefensi
ble and rejoice in its abolition. But
the foot remains that with reference to
this large part of the community the
framers never thought of applying liter
ally the doctrine of the consent of the
governed.
It requires no great stretch of imagin
ation to realize the way in which the
congress of 1770 would have received
the proposition to apply the doctrine
to women. Some states in our time
have admitted women to a share in gov
ernment. But does any one suppose
that as the revolutionary congress lis
tened to the report of Jefferson's com
mittee it occurred to a single one of
them that the logic of it was woman
suffrage ? The fiction that women vir
tually have a voice in political action
THWJ ?
through their husbands and brothers
would hardly satisfy our equal-suffrage
associations. They certainly would
maintain very positively that the literal
application of the Declaration would
give women a vote. But it is quite
clear that here is a half of our commun
ity who during the whole history of the
republic have been governed by the
other half in spite of the Declaration of
Independence. And it is quite as clear
that the framers would not have thought
any other arrangement conceivable.
Government of ImlliuiH.
We have uniformly treated Indians
in this respect as we have slaves and
women. While permitting tribal au
thority under certain limitations , yet
we have always maintained our own
supremacy. We have governed Indians
by the strong hand , regardless of their
assent to our policies. Of course we
iiave often sought to pnrsnade. But
when moral suasion has failed , if the
issue has seemed to us of sufficient im
portance , we have then compelled obe
dience to our will. This was true in
1776 , and has been true all the time
since. Here is a case in which one na
tion has uniformly assumed the right
to judge whether another nation is fit
for political independence. We are
told that such an assumption is always
of the essence of tyranny. Perhaps it
is. But the consequences which would
lave followed the withholding of our
control over the Indians are so plain
that they must be obvious even to one
who believes , or thinks he believes , in
; he literal interpretation of the doctrine
of the consent of the governed.
In 1808 Mr. Jefferson had an oppor-
; unity to make a literal application of
the doctrine. He wanted Louisiana to
belong to the United States. He be
lieved that the vital interests of this
country imperatively demanded the ac
quisition of New Orleans , and had
jluntly avowed the opinion that any
foreign nation which held that city was
our natural enemy. It was not the
wilderness beyond the Mississippi which
he sought , but the city of New Orleans ,
regardless of the wishes of its thriving
French and Spanish population. These
people passionately desired not to be
; ransferred to the authority of the Uni
ted States : But their wishes were not
consulted. They were sold by France
and bought by the United States for
15,000,000. The whole population of the
ceded territory was estimated at the
; ime to include somewhat less than 100-
000 souls whites , negroes and Indians.
Probably most of the Indians never
heard of the transaction , the most of
the negroes either knew or cared noth
ing about it , and the whites were almost
unanimously opposed to it. But regard
less of their wishes the author of the
Declaration of Independence promptly
bought them all , at the rate , if one may
employ the present-day jargon , of $150 a
head. The city of New Orleans , it is
sometimes said , was only a trifling
settlement , too small to take into ac
count in this question. In 1800 there
were only six cities in the union
with a population over 8,000. At that
time the population of New Orleans was
between 8,000 and 10,000 , and thus
when annexed it fell within the largest >
seven cities in the area of the republic. ' i
Can as much be said of Manila ? No ,
the consent of the governed was not
asked in the case of Louisiana , doubt-
less because Mr. Jefferson was convinc
ed that the most important interests of
the United States were at stake. Doubt
less he was right. And he probably
knew what he meant by the "consent of
the governed" clause in the Declaration.
The Southern Confederacy.
In 1861 a number of our states decid
ed that they no longer were willing to
be governed by the rest , and so set up a
government of their own. This was no
scanty population in a vast wilderness.
The seceding states were compact , were
inhabited by millions of our own race ,
had their own local governments which
the people had been long accustomed to
administer , and undoubtedly if they
had been allowed their independence
would have held a dignified position
among the nations of the world. But
the remaining states of the Union
waged a long and bloody war
on the southerners in order to
force on them a government to
which they did not consent. If the
Declaration ever had an application in
its literal meaning it was in 1861. But
such an application was utterly disre
garded , partly from sentiment , largely
because the north believed , as did Jef
ferson in 1803 , that the vital interests
of the whole ought to prevail over even
the earnest desires of a part.
In our own time we have another in
teresting case in which the literal appli
cation of the Declaration is in question.
North Carolina , Louisiana and other
states have recently modified their fun
damental law in such way as to disfran
chise nearly all of their negroes. Now ,
for my part , I am quite convinced that
ignorant and shiftless negroes should
bave. no share in political power.
Whether the same prinoiple should be
applied to similar classes of whites is a
question to which there are two sides ,
and which need not be considered now.
But it is perfectly plain that the dis
franchised negroes , many thousands in
number , are governed irrespective of
their consent , in square contradiction of
the literal interpretation of the Declara
tion.
tion.A
A distinguished citizen of Nebraska
is seeking the presidency of the United
States at present on the issue of a novel
interpretation of the Declaration of In
dependence , just as four years ago he
sought the same office on the issue of a
novel interpretation of the laws of na-
