Tip: Highlight text to annotate itX
THE ANGLO-SAXON CENTURY
AND
THE UNIFICATION OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
BY
JOHN R. DOS PASSOS
OF THE NEW YORK BAR
Author of "Stock Brokers and Stock Exchanges," "The Interstate
Commerce Act," "Commercial Trusts," etc.
SECOND EDITION
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
Knickerbocker Press
1903
{ii}
COPYRIGHT, 1903
BY
JOHN R. DOS PASSOS
Published, June, 1903
Reprinted, August, 1903
Knickerbocker Press, New York
{iii}
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER PAGE
Introduction ……………………………………….vii
I. Two events which mark the close of the nineteenth century.1
I. By the Spanish War, the relations of the United States to
Europe and the East were suddenly transformed…………..3
II. The effect of the war in Africa upon the relations and
power of England…………………………………….5
III. The present diplomatic and political map of the world.8
IV. Russia, China, France—their relations to each other and
to the world……………………………………….10
V. The Spanish and Portuguese people………………….31
II. The origin and form of the suggested alliance between
England and the United States…48
I. How the suggestion arose………………………….48
II. The indefiniteness of the form of the proposed
Alliance…………………………………………..55
Definition of co-operation, alliance, union, or compact…61
III. The historical facts traced which have been gradually
leading to interfusion between the English-speaking
people…………………………………………….69
{iv}
I. The different epochs which led to the development and
expansion of the English-speaking race………………71
a. The introduction of Christianity into England……71
b. The consolidation of the different kingdoms of
England into one………………………………..74
c. The influence of the Roman Law upon England's
Progress……………………………………….77
d. The Great Charters—the Petition of Right—the
Habeas Corpus Act, passed under Charles—the Bill of
Rights in 1688—and the Act of Settlement………….79
e. The union with Scotland……………………….80
f. Discovery of America………………………….81
g. The independence of the colonies……………….83
II. Résumé of the foregoing………………………….96
IV. The inherent natural reasons or sympathetic causes
which sustain a union, and which support the historical
growth and tendency to the same end examined…………..99
I. Union natural as to time and people……………..100
II. Of the same national family…………………….101
III. The same language……………………………..108
IV. The same literature……………………………116
V. The same political institutions…………………124
VI. The same laws, legal customs, and general modes of
judicial procedure……………………………….133
VII. The same tendency and methods of religious thought
and worship……………………………………..137
VIII. Intermarriages……………………………….138
{v}
IX. Other similarities between the two nations,
exhibiting the natural features of the alliance, such
as the drama, sports, pastimes, habits of living…….139
X. Resume……………………………………….140
V. The selfish causes which provoke and support an alliance
Examined………………………………………….142
I. The common interests of both countries demand
co-operation—identity of international action……142
Commercial relations……………………………144
Financial relations…………………………….144
II. Self-preservation—protection—necessity…………145
III. Duty…………………………………………146
VI. The means by which a closer union may be created and
maintained………………………………………..152
Preliminary……………………………………….153
The three methods examined by which a union may be
established……………………………………..154
By absorption of all into one nation……………..154
By establishing a federation…………………….154
By a treaty—regulating their conduct and intercourse
with each other………………………………155
The reasons existing against the first two, and in
favor of the last method………………………156
VII. The subjects to be covered by a Treaty…………….159
I. The Dominion of Canada to become a part of the United
States of America………………………………159
II. Common Citizenship……………………………..179
III. The establishment of freedom of commercial
intercourse and relations between the countries
involved, to the same extent as that which exists
between the different States constituting the United
States of America………………………………..202
{vi}
IV. Great Britain and the United States (I) to coin gold,
silver, nickel and copper money, not displaying the
same devices or mottoes, but possessing an equal money
value, and interchangeable everywhere within the limits
covered by the Treaty, and (2) to establish a uniform
standard of weights and measures…………………..205
I. The same gold, silver, nickel and copper money…205
II. To establish a uniform standard of weights and
measures…………………………………207
V. In case of any dispute hereafter occurring between
Great Britain, or any of her colonies, and the United
States, the same to be referred to a supreme court of
arbitration…………………………………….207
CONCLUSION. The state of public opinion upon the question
of Anglo-Saxon alliance…………………………….209
{vii}
INTRODUCTION
TO THE SECOND EDITION
I CANNOT but feel that the exhaustion of the first edition of
this book so quickly, indicates that the public is, at least,
interested in the questions it discusses.
I believe that the twentieth century is par excellence "The
Anglo-Saxon Century," in which the English-speaking peoples may
lead and predominate the world. My mind recoils from any other
picture, because the failure of our people to assume the power
committed to their hands means the segregation of nations and
states, and the general disorganisation of society through
cruel, bloody, and fratricidal wars. The elimination of war and
the advancement of civilisation have been the motive of my book.
To effect this object I have seen no other way than to
concentrate power in the hands of the most worthy. If the
Anglo-Saxon peoples do not come within that denomination, what
other will?
The struggle for predominance, tacit or avowed, still goes on.
No one important nation, in our {viii} times, is more content to
remain in a second, or even an equal place, than at any former
period of history. Choice then, being necessary, what choice
shall be made? The answer of everyone who is likely to be within
the circle of my readers, and whose mind is not prepossessed by
some special and, as I must think, perverse influence, may be
confidently anticipated. It will be that which I have given.
I have opened up a plan which I consider feasible. I have set no
time for its adoption either in whole or in part. On the
contrary, I asserted (pp. 2 and 3) that "the question [of
unification], in the ordinary course of events, must pass
through the crucible of debate, tinctured and embittered by
prejudice, ignorance, and jealousy … it may drag along through
years, the sport of every whirlwind of domestic and foreign
politics."
To compare small things with great, I recall that Lord Bacon
advocated, in his own powerful and masterly way, the union of
Scotland and England more than one hundred years before it was
actually accomplished.
In launching another edition of the book upon the great sea of
modern literature, I feel renewed confidence that it will
eventually attract a nucleus of readers sufficient in number and
influence to mould its suggestions into public issues, to be
argued and disposed of, in a manner commensurate with their
importance.
J. R. D. P.
August, 1903.
{ix}
INTRODUCTION
IN this book I advocate the union of all the English-speaking
peoples by steps natural and effective. Believing that the only
real obstacle to a complete and sympathetic entente between
the Anglo-Saxon peoples may arise from the situation of Canada,
I urge her voluntary incorporation with the American Republic.
Upon broad principles, this incorporation ought not to be
difficult, seeing that the Federal idea, which has been so
happily developed in the existing Canadian institutions,
corresponds, in a large degree, with our own. As an offset, as
well as to soften, if not wholly eradicate, any sentiment
adverse to the surrender of a separate national existence, I
propose the establishment of a common, interchangeable,
citizenship between all English-speaking Nations and Colonies by
the abrogation of the naturalisation laws of the United States
and the British Empire, so that the citizens of each can, at
will, upon landing in the other's territory, become citizens of
any of the countries dominated by these Governments.
The proposition of the free admission of English {x} and
Americans to citizenship in the respective Governments of the
United States and the British Empire, without a previous
quarantine, is neither visionary nor impracticable; on the
contrary, as I show in Chapter VII, it is in entire harmony with
the spirit and purpose of the naturalisation laws, and it is,
moreover, sanctioned by the authority of history and of several
distinguished modern names.
To make the union permanent and indissoluble, I would introduce
free trade between the United States and the British Empire, the
same as exists between the several States of our Republic; and
to this I would add the adoption of the same standard of money
and of weights and measures. To render armed conflict impossible
in the event of any differences arising between us, I would
establish an Arbitration Court, with full jurisdiction to
determine finally all disputes which may hereafter arise.
By these means a real and permanent consolidation of the
Anglo-Saxon peoples will be accomplished, without the
destruction or impairment in the least degree of the political
autonomy of the individual governments of the United States or
of the British Empire, and without departing from any maxims of
the international policy of either.
I do not advocate, but deprecate, in common with those who have
given the subject serious study, a defensive and offensive
alliance, as this term is now used.
The events revealed in the history of the Anglo-Saxon peoples,
and the conclusions logically deducible {xi} therefrom, amply
justify the unification of the whole English-speaking family as
a wise and necessary step in their destiny and progress.
I hereafter endeavour to show that such an alliance is natural;
that, growing out of our mutual interests, it is necessary; and
that a true analysis of our duty to ourselves and our relations
to the outside world impresses it upon us as a sacred mission.
Upon these foundations I have built the structure of an enduring
Anglo-Saxon league. If I am wrong in the premises, the
international mansion which I have endeavoured to construct must
fall to the ground. If, on the other hand, I am correct, then
the two powerful motives which underlie all individual and
national action are present, for sentiment and selfishness
alike demand its consummation.
The general subject of an alliance of some kind has already been
largely discussed in both countries, but it has taken no
tangible shape beyond the formation of a few societies whose end
has been to develop closer relations between the two peoples,
and whose success has been, alas! most indifferent.
The opening of the twentieth century reveals two great
conditions which must deeply and powerfully affect the acts of
individuals and nations, and compress events, which ordinarily
would take ages to mature, into a few years. First, there are no
more worlds to discover, and territorial absorption by purchase
or force of arms is the sole means by which the most powerful
nations can add to their {xii} possessions. Diplomatic eyes now
look inward and not outward. Second, all nations have become
near neighbours to each other; and the achievements of science,
conquering space and time, enable the newspapers, among other
things, to present each morning a full picture of the doings of
the whole world on the preceding day. The important acts of a
nation's life are laid bare daily, and the profoundest secret of
state can no longer be withheld from the lynx-eyed newsgatherer.
The motives, ambitions, and actions, of the nations are thus
constantly revealed to all who wish to read them in the
journals, for the price of a few pennies. Marvellous! Most
marvellous!
"High placed are we, the times are dangerous,
Grave things and fateful hang upon the least
In nice conjunctures."[1]
Obeying the course of general progress, political and diplomatic
events in this age must "therefore, take root and ripen quickly.
Each nation is armed to the teeth, or is ready so to arm, and
the expenditure of money for soldiers and sailors and the
equipment for war will not stop on this side of national
solvency and extermination. A complete justification of
Anglo-Saxon aggregation grows out of the fact that it can arrest
and destroy this dreadful modern tendency. But even if angels
advocated it, a step of such profound importance would
necessarily be preceded by much private and public argument, in
which the outside world would largely {xiii} participate, and
from whom, perhaps, much opposition might arise; yet it may
mature, forsooth, over night.
The suggestion of an Anglo-Saxon union will be looked upon with
disfavour by foreign nations, and the narrow view will be urged,
that by means of it, disproportioned power will be lodged in our
hands to their detriment. There is no weight, however, in the
objection: power lodged in the proper hands hurts no one.
Mistakes there may be here and there, but the course of this
great race cannot be retarded. It must go on. It must move
forward in the mission to spread Christianity and civilisation
everywhere, and to open up the undeveloped part of the world to
the expanding demands of commerce, and of all that commerce,
liberally conducted, implies.
Let us take up together the work so magnificently performed by
the United States and by England down to the commencement of
this century. Once for all let prejudices be cast aside. Let us
unite in a great English-speaking family. Let us be content to
learn from each other. And when the curtain of the twenty-first
century is raised, may the successful anglicisation of the world
be revealed; may the real spirit of our institutions and laws
prevail everywhere, and the English language have become the
universal dialect of mankind.
In the view I have given of English history, manners, and
institutions, and their relation to our own, I am aware that I
do not go beyond the merest sketch. I should, perhaps, have
paused {xiv} longer on that part of the subject,—it would have
been pleasant to do so,—but as it is practically inexhaustible,
it would have changed the character of the work and have swelled
it to undue proportions. I have said enough, I think, to point
out the path to every intelligent reader likely to be interested
in this question, and who has not heretofore made it a study.
Once accepted as a subject of interest, every kind of reading,
even to the most light and desultory which our copious
literature affords, may be made to cast an illumination upon it.
Thus, while mentioning the great leading facts of English
Constitutional development—those more obvious stepping-stones
upon which the race ascended in that difficult path—I have
found it impossible to detail all the influences, whether of
ancient or recent growth, which accompanied or produced the
respective movements. The least obtrusive causes are not
infrequently the most potent as well as the most interesting. I
firmly believe that the ultimate ascertainable causes in all
such cases will be found in the character of the people, however
that character may have been generated.
I wish to acknowledge publicly, and return my thanks for, the
substantial aid which I have received in the preparation of this
book from my dear and life-long friend, Theodore McFadden, Esq.,
of the Philadelphia Bar, the author of a most exquisite and
classic drama, Madalena; or The Maids' Mischief, and many
effective essays and articles. I have discussed every part of
this work {xv} with him, and in the course of its preparation,
he has made many valuable suggestions, some of which I have
incorporated herein in his exact language. While we are in
earnest agreement as to the main purpose of the book, namely,
the removal of prejudices and the approximation of the two
peoples for all great and beneficial objects, including their
mutual defence, our views are not always in accord as to the
methods of giving effect to that purpose. To differ with one of
the ripest scholars, one of the most profound and liberal
thinkers and eloquent writers of the day, even upon a trivial
point, is a matter of sincere regret, but convictions upon the
subjects discussed herein, at first light and eradicable, have,
by reflection and study, become strengthened and deepened, and I
shrink not from the responsibility and duty of giving them full
light.
May they bear ripe and wholesome fruit!
J. R. D. P.
NEW YORK, April, 1903.
[1] Madalena; or The Maids' Mischief, by Theodore McFadden.
{xvi}
{1}
THE ANGLO-SAXON CENTURY
CHAPTER I
TWO EVENTS WHICH MARK THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
WHEN the sun disappeared on the last day of the Nineteenth
Century, it left in the horizon vivid pictures of two unexpected
and incomplete events, whose influences will penetrate far into
the realm of future history and throw light upon the great
records which will be made in this new century. In one picture,
the United States of America was seen fighting in the
Philippines for the possession of a land which she claimed by
the double title of conquest and purchase. In the other, the
British Empire was battling with the Boers; sending her armies
over the seas into Africa, to answer the defiant and goading
challenge of that people.
Strange and unexpected history! The two powers the least
prepared for or anticipating war were forced into battle; while
Germany, France, {2} Austria, and Italy, armed to the teeth,
momentarily expecting strife, became spectators instead of
actors. We must prepare always for the unexpected.
Neither the acquisition by the United States of new territories,
conquered or purchased, from a weaker power, nor the subjugation
of the Boers by England and the enforcement of absolute
sovereignty upon their republics, are, per se, events of
supreme importance to the outside world.
The continental powers view with comparative complacency the
relinquishment of the sovereignty of Spain over the Philippines,
Cuba, and Puerto Rico; and while the subjugation of the Boers,
and the metamorphosis of their republics into colonies of the
British Empire, awakens keener interest and criticism, these
acts will, nevertheless, pass unchallenged, and eventually be
acquiesced in.
But the deep significance of these two historical incidents is,
that they have brought the English-American peoples into such
striking prominence that their present and future relations to
each other, and the aim and scope of their ambition, separately
or combined, must become an absorbing topic of international
thought and discussion.
A union of all the English-speaking peoples has become a
probability; and while the question, in the ordinary course of
events, must pass through the crucible of debate, tinctured and
embittered by prejudice, ignorance, and jealousy, a sudden
upheaval or unexpected revolution in international affairs might
cause its solution in a day. On the other hand, it may drag
along through years, the {3} sport of every whirlwind of
domestic and foreign politics.
The Anglo-Saxon people should only be concerned with the right
and wrong of the subject—absolutely fearless of the results to
which an inquiry based upon sound premises may lead. It is now
manifest that to this great race is entrusted the civilisation
and christianisation of the world.
Whether they will perform the duties of this sacred trust is the
problem of the Twentieth Century.
I shall proceed to state the grounds for this opinion, and to
unfold the reasons which should influence this great people to
act as one.
I.—BY THE SPANISH WAR, THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
EUROPE AND THE EAST WERE SUDDENLY TRANSFORMED
This war reveals the United States in many aspects as the
leading power of the world. While her wonderful development,
progress, and marvellous wealth were freely talked about and
ungrudgingly acknowledged, she has, by this last war, leaped,
per saltum, into a position among nations which will force
her, nolens volens, to assume all the burdens and
responsibilities which her new rank demands. If we look the
actual situation in the face, it is impossible to escape the
consequences of this dénouement. The United States has suddenly
become a natural and necessary party to all great international
questions; and this fact, with her increasing commercial and
financial power, demands {4} that she should be ready to second
the interests of her people, who are now spreading out in all
directions in search of greater wealth and wider business
relations. The oceans which separate the United States from
Europe and the East were once supposed to be perpetual barriers
to her active participation in international questions. It was
assumed that she had quite enough to do, then and for all time
to come, to attend to the development of her own vast and
continuous country.
The victory of Dewey at Manila, however, combined with the
mighty change which has been wrought in human affairs by
science, electricity, and steam, struck the scales from the eyes
of the world, and, presto! she has leaped into the arena of
history as the most important factor of the new century. Can
this situation be made other than it is by the shibboleth of
party platforms, or individual opinion? Can her progress be
stayed? With as much reason we may command the flowers and the
trees not to grow—bid nature stand still, and her laws not
operate!
She did not seek the rank of an international power; it was
evolved out of a confluence of natural conditions. She can no
more cast it off than can our bodies the food of which we have
partaken after it has entered into our organisms. If history
teaches any lesson, it is that nations, like individuals, follow
the law of their being; that in their growth and in their
decline they are creatures of conditions, in which even their
own volition plays but a part, and that often the smallest part.
{5}
II.—THE EFFECT OF THE WAR IN AFRICA UPON THE RELATIONS AND
POWER OF ENGLAND
It has been boastingly said by her enemies, and reluctantly
acknowledged by some of her friends, that England has entered
upon her decline, and that a decay has set in which will destroy
her power and prestige. There is nothing more absurd than this
assertion. The same statements were circulated in reference to
her at various periods of her past history—notably at the close
of the Revolutionary War. Look into her history at that time;
consult the contemporaneous writers, and we shall find them
replete with gloomy and direful predictions. And yet how she
gathered herself together; and in a few years how resplendent
she was in military and civic glory! Her political edifice
cannot be destroyed so long as reason holds its sway, because it
is built upon the solid foundations of true civil liberty, which
it is the aim of all people to establish and conserve. Show me
anyone, not actuated by pure bigotry, who would deliberately and
maliciously wish to demolish such a government!
When men band themselves together in a revolutionary purpose, it
is to destroy tyranny and oppression. They do not begin
revolutions with edicts against liberty and free government.
England will decline, if ever she declines, when men assail
order and law, and seek to erect in their stead, as a basis of
government, chaos and confusion. Her literature can never be
destroyed; it will enlighten the world long after her government
{6} ceases to be. It will be the basis of a new civilisation
long, long after her people cease to act together. I will not
weary the reader with statistics of her material growth. They
show no real, permanent decline; but they do reveal that she has
fierce commercial competitors in the United States and Germany.
They show that she must arouse herself to a real struggle to
support her people. But no matter how this war for commercial
supremacy may end, we must remember that the real greatness of a
nation, or people, does not wholly consist in mere material
wealth. We of North America are overlooking this important fact
in our sudden and marvellous development. We are to-day, and not
without some truth, called a purely "dollar nation." Our people
are struggling for money, as if that were the only desideratum
of life. We forget that religion, in its broad sense, liberty,
justice, equality, and virtue are more important than money;
they are the chains of steel which bind a free people together;
mere wealth without these qualities has no preserving power: and
if we lose our institutions, in their form or in their spirit,
of what use will money be to us, or how will it be protected?
The acquisition of wealth is legitimate, but it must not be the
sole aim of the people, else they will forget their duties as
citizens; and should that time come, and chaos and revolution
ensue, of what use will material advantages be, even if they
should survive the loss of freedom?
Remember that a government based upon gold, {7} wealth,
sordidness, must end unhappily. We must have other and higher
ideals for our people.
Do not misunderstand me; I do not decry individual, and, in
certain degrees, aggregate wealth. Let our citizens accumulate
money "beyond the dreams of avarice." Through the natural
channels open for its circulation, it will gradually flow back
to the community. And overlook not the difference between real
and fictitious values. Men often create paper values, which
disappear like snow before the summer sun when the operations of
true economic principles attack them. So long as individual or
combined wealth adheres to its legitimate functions, a State is
safe. When, however, it is used to corrupt or influence the
judiciary; when it seeks to interfere with, or affect
legislation; when it subsidises or controls the press; when it
severs instead of combines society; in fine, when it is used as
a substitute for character, the people must beware; they must
quickly intervene and crush it; for the pillars of all free
government will then be attacked, and they will experience an
oligarchy of wealth—the worst of all oligarchies and the most
destructive of individual liberty.
One word more on the subject of England's alleged material
decline. In less than one year she transported in her own ships
two hundred and fifty thousand soldiers to South Africa, without
the loss of a single life.
No other two existing nations could have accomplished the same
task; and, allowing for all drawbacks {8} and mishaps, when the
history of that war comes to be written, it will be found that,
under all the circumstances, it will not be the least of ancient
or modern achievements. And yet with what characteristic absence
of self-glorification it has been done!
In the last century, and under the glorious reign just closed,
she has been perfecting more and more her constitutional system;
the various classes composing her society have been thoroughly
interfused; political power has been extended to the masses,
education has been disseminated, benevolent enterprise has gone
hand in hand with the acquisition of wealth to an unparalleled
degree. These are to be set off against any possible decline in
her trade. It is hard to see how even that decline can be
permanent or anything more than accidental while she retains her
other possessions, and along with them the virile qualities
which called them into existence.
She commences the twentieth century with undiminished glory and
the prospect of increasing influence.
III.-THE PRESENT DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL MAP OF THE WORLD
In a little less than four years, the entire relations of the
nations of the world to each other have changed. Old maps have
become obsolete and valueless. The plans of diplomacy have been
upset. All international combinations have been {9} frustrated,
and the nice calculations and adjustments of European statesmen
are, by the unexpected results of the two, in some of their
aspects, insignificant wars, thrown into confusion and
perplexity, if not for ever destroyed. The diplomatic slate has
been sponged clean, and new alliances and international
copartnerships must be written on it.
Does it not seem plain, therefore, in the shifting of places and
combinations, that the British Empire and the United States are
to be the chief factors in the new historical scenes of the
twentieth century?
The world is now, in a practical sense, owned or controlled by
five nations: the British Empire, the United States of America,
Russia, Germany, and France. China, preliminary to an eventual
division of her territories, has become a ward of the preceding
powers, and unless, perchance by some miracle, she steals the
thunder of modern Jove, and arms her hordes with fashionable
artillery and ammunition,—a most unlikely prospect, except in
accord with and under the tutelage of Russia,—she can no longer
be numbered as a factor in international affairs. Japan,
Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland,
Belgium, Holland, Norway and Sweden, and the other small
sovereignties of the world are mere satellites, revolving around
these great political planets, and in due course of time
destined to be attached to one or the other of them, or at least
so close in sympathy with their principles {10} as to render
concert of action between them inevitable.
IV.—RUSSIA, CHINA, FRANCE—THEIR RELATIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO
THE WORLD
The Russian and Spanish races will furnish two absorbing
problems of this century to Europe and the United States.
Let us take up the Russian question first.
There are to-day three great rivals in the commercial
world,—the United States, England and Germany. We might add
France in some branches of trade, and Japan in others. The
commercial ambition of the United States will be, and that of
England and Germany is, world-wide. What the natural rivalry
between these powers will result in I need not undertake to
predict. The laws of trade, however, are unerring, and the
cheapest and best seller will eventually secure the customer. As
the manufactories of England, Germany, and France close their
doors before the keen business genius and competition of the
Yankees, immigration to the United States will increase: a
hegira of foreign labourers and mechanics will set in, which
will greatly thin out, if not depopulate, the old countries of
Europe of their best manufacturing ability. This result is
inevitable under any conditions; but it must be regarded as
separate and apart from the considerations to which allusion is
hereafter made. The relations of Russia to this commercial
question and to the general status of European affairs, are
unique and of the deepest importance. Russia to-day is {11} in
the process of governmental and national development. She is not
yet, in any complete sense, an integral, sympathetic, national
whole, as are the United States, England, and Germany. Her
government is still experimental. She is not yet a firm, stable,
political unity, but is working with tremendous activity to
build up and operate a plan of internal policy. At the same time
she is developing a broad, well defined, ambitious, but not
unnatural external career. She is now, as ever, grasping for
contiguous territories. The one policy is largely dependent
for success upon the other. If she overcomes the fires of
revolution that burn within her people; if she can, in spite of
the diffusion of education and the principles of liberty,
maintain the particular species of arbitrary government which
now exists; if she succeeds in continuing a despotism, and can
present an unbroken front to the civilised powers of the world,
maintaining peace and order within, while she asserts and
sustains her policy without,—in that event the external policy
of Russia may become the second, if not the first, great and
absorbing question of the century. If Russia does not succeed
with her people; if discontent and revolution ensue; if the
present dynasty is overthrown; if a new and different,
government is installed in that country, or it is split up into
different governments, her power as an international factor will
naturally be so weakened and reduced that she may be compelled
to agree to any territorial partition or adjustment which may be
eventually fixed upon by the other powers, {12} if they act
together. In shaping their commercial policies, however, it will
not be prudent for the United States, England, Germany, and
France to rely upon the weakness of Russia's internal
government, although its overthrow is an event by no means
unlikely, engaged as she is in building and sustaining a
political fabric contrary to modern tendencies and modern
thought, and inimical to those nations which possess them. But
the powers mentioned above must assume that her internal policy
will succeed, and the probabilities of such success, at least
for some years to come, make it important for them to act
conjointly and promptly in matters pertaining to China,
South-eastern Europe and Asia. No matter how they may diverge in
other questions, upon the subject of China their true interests
demand joint action. Under no circumstances, at least for many
years, will Russia be a general commercial rival to these four
powers. She has no ambition, for instance, in the direction of
Africa, now covered by England, Germany, and France; nor has she
any present intention of exploiting the fields of South America
or Mexico. The sphere of her external policy embraces
South-eastern Europe, Asia, and China, and in these fields she
has always met and been checked by Great Britain. It is an
absolute, indisputable fact of history, that but for the
predominating influence and power of England, Russia would
to-day be the complete master of China, Turkey, Persia, and
other parts of Asia—in fact, of all Asia. England, alone, might
still continue to check Russia's {13} designs on these
countries, but in so doing she would be acting not only for
Germany, but for the United States, hence the Eastern policy of
England must be radically changed, or she must act
co-operatively with the United States, France, and Germany, or
with one or two of these powers. She cannot for ever continue in
the unavowed invidious role of defender of Europe against this
gigantic, ever-advancing, all-absorbing antagonist. But eternal
gratitude is due to her from the United States and the other
powers of Europe for what she has already done in this
direction.
Unless some general check, such as is suggested in these pages,
be applied, the dream of Peter the Great would seem to be in a
fair way of fulfilment. That dream was, first, the acquisition
of all Asia; second, the conquest of all Europe—the latter by
the instrumentality of its own dissensions, and the playing off
of the rival interests, as Austria against France, afterwards
France against Germany—a state of things which has an approach
to realisation at the present moment. The royal dreamer did not
embrace America within the scope of his vision,—a very
important and ever-growing factor in the general problem,
whether for good or evil.[1]
{14}
In the new diplomatic advent, the United States, Germany,
England, and Russia, and, perhaps, France, must be the principal
factors. What shall their policy be? Undoubtedly England, the
United States, and Germany would never consent to allow Russia
to carry out her present ambition to become the owner of China
and the other Eastern possessions, which every one knows she
covets, and covets quite naturally, because her contiguity to
these territories makes it of vital importance for her to obtain
a predominating control there, when they pass from the weak
hands in which they now rest. Moreover, the strong, despotic
government {15} of Russia is suited to Chinese education and
intelligence, perhaps much more so than that which any European
power could establish there. But behold the proportions and
strength of the Russian Empire with China and the Chinese under
her control! Does any European power look with equanimity upon
such a picture? Naturally, Russia will hesitate long before she
will consent to relinquish her cherished dream of eventually
controlling these possessions.
It has been manifest for years that China could not take care of
herself, and what little diplomacy {16} exists in modern times
has been exercised in guarding the present and future integrity
of that country from the grasp of rival foreign powers. Until
the late war (if the anomalous events which recently transpired
in China can be correctly called a war) these diplomatic
questions had really involved only England and Russia. At
present, the situation is as follows: China and the East must be
opened to meet the increasing commercial growth of the United
States, England, Germany, and France. There are not enough
customers to go round; the domain of commercial activity is too
narrow; competition is becoming so close and hot, especially
{17} when the United States invades those grounds heretofore
exclusively occupied by England, Germany, and France, that new
territories must be found, and fresh fields of trade exposed.
The doors of China must be thrown wide open to the manufacturers
of all these countries, on terms of equality. The policy of
Russia is to delay the consummation of this event. She may at
some future time be in a situation where she can occupy the
disputed field against all comers. She is near the ground, and
is becoming more powerful every day, in proportion as her
internal policy is fixed, and her laws, religion, and government
are made satisfactory to her subjects.
If all these things turn out favourably for Russia, and she can
secure the co-operation of China, it is not unlikely or
improbable that she will one day say to the other powers, "Hands
off!" and be prepared to enforce her words.
Under these circumstances, it is the unquestionable policy of
England, the United States, Germany, and France, at least so far
as China is concerned, to have their relations with Russia
settled at once. If Russia can maintain the status quo until
events are ripe for her to act aggressively, it is her plain
policy to do so. On the other hand, England, the United States,
France, and Germany can gain nothing by the delay, but
everything by quick, present, concerted action. The division of
China once made, Russian ambition and diplomacy are for ever
checked. Of course there is the Franco-Russian alliance. I pay
no attention to it. It is a {18} farce—a diplomatic paradox; so
suicidal to France's real interest that it is liable to drop to
pieces at any change in the French Ministry.
Another phase of the subject, i.e., the internal condition of
China.
In the aspect in which I am considering the subject, I do not
think I am wrong in saying that China bears the same relation to
the civilised world as the continent of America did to Europe in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There are, of course,
great differences—China has more people—she has a more
developed internal trade, her citizens have more intelligence
and certain inventive and business qualities, and there are
other very material features too obvious to mention, which
distinguish the Chinese from the American aborigines, but in the
sense in which I am speaking, the comparison is correct. China
has made no distinct advance for centuries, in a civilising
direction, in the sciences and arts, in commercial and
manufacturing pursuits, to say nothing of political, religious,
and moral improvements, schools and eleemosynary establishments.
She has stood dead-still, if she has not actually taken a step
backward. As a nation, China is oblivious to anything
progressive. In fact, so low is she in the scale of modern
civilisation, that the United States, whose commendable policy
has been to invite immigrants to her shores, has deliberately
shut her doors to China, and has unceremoniously refused to
receive the latter's subjects either as citizens or as
travellers. In ordinary circumstances, the estimation {19} of
independent thinkers, this policy of exclusion would be
intolerable, but its justification has been sustained upon the
ground that the Chinese are not regarded as fit associates for
American citizens, and no persons are wanted in this country who
do not meet this requirement. In a word, China is out of harmony
in her relations to the civilised powers. With but few
exceptions her policy has been to close her doors to the outside
world, to shut herself up in a shell upon the approach of
strangers. China, in respect to modern development, must be
opened by the corkscrew of progress. She does not respond with
effervescence to the approaches of civilisation. The massacre of
an ambassador of a great power, the altogether unjustifiable
slaughter of helpless missionaries, invited and induced to
reside there by treaty, and the turbulent confusion which reigns
inside of her borders, form complete evidence of the utter
incapacity of the nation for respectable, stable government. She
is old, childish, helpless, and if her territories are to be
opened and developed, if her people are to be educated,
enlightened and made prosperous, it must be by the strong hands
of the civilised powers. Of course, touching and effective
arguments may be made against the right of nations forcibly and
bodily to take possession of Chinese soil, and intelligent and
cultivated Chinese statesmen and gifted scholars like Wu
Ting-Fang, the late Chinese Ambassador to the United States, may
make pathetic appeals against such a movement, based upon the
superior moral and legal right of the {20} Chinese to their own
soil and government. But we must look the question fairly in the
face, undisturbed and unaffected by arguments which, ordinarily,
would have preponderating weight. The Indians who occupied the
soil of North America, the Britons who occupied the soil of
England, had the same arguments. Nothing is finer than the
pictured eloquence of the Indian chiefs as they spiritedly
protested against the invasion of their soil and the dispersion
and extinguishment of their tribal governments. But before the
march of progress and the underlying necessities of
civilisation, these cries of sentiment and sympathy will not
long be heard. The invincible spirit of progress must go on.
Like quicksilver, it will noiselessly run into every portion of
the globe where voids created by political weakness and
barbarism exist. Sympathy cannot be allowed for ever to block
human advancement. In the contest between the higher and the
lower order of things, it is impossible to adjust the details to
our liking. There is always an intermediate period of partial
injustice and confusion before the solution is reached. China
can prove no exception to this view. Railroads will eventually
appear in the highways of China in place of the ancient and
worn-out methods of transportation which now prevail;
manufacturing and mining pursuits will be established, her
fields will be opened, cultivated, and enriched by modern
methods and implements of agriculture. It will be in vain for
the Chinese to undertake to support their religion and methods
of thought and life by appeals {21} to Confucius and other
teachers. These must give way under the influence of modern
progress. Why? Because they have produced no fruit. A tree that
bears nothing is valueless. China's ethics, laws, religion, and
philosophy are barren. Primitively and simply beautiful they may
be, but they are without practical value except as historical
monuments marking the advance of nations. Her present condition
attests the value of her institutions: "By their fruits ye shall
know them."
In face of all these facts, it is hard to realise that the
allied powers should precipitately have left China. Yet the
reason is plain. England and the United States each had a war
upon its hands. The Chinese difficulty happened at a most
inopportune time, and when the United States inaugurated and
persisted in a movement of abandonment of China, England was
reluctantly forced to give up her convictions and to join in the
retrograde march. Had England been entirely free to act, no
doubt she would have forced a different settlement. The McKinley
administration exhibited a natural weakness in its policy. It
had to fight shy of the imperialistic cry, which had been dinned
in its ears ad nauseam with respect to the Philippine
possessions; it feared another broadside from opposition
newspapers, which was imminent if it pursued a strong policy in
China, and hence one was hit upon of apparent magnanimity
towards the Chinese, but which was at once superficial, weak,
and misleading, and withal the worst measure for China which
could be imagined. The allied powers {22} entered China without
a studied or concerted plan, and they left it without a clear
solution or settlement of the questions involved. Their going in
was as their coming out—hasty, ill-conceived, and impolitic.
The commencement and the conclusion were both befogged. No
sooner were the allied troops removed than internal dissensions
appeared, and the weakness, wretchedness, and incompetence of
the Chinese government was soon more plainly revealed than ever.
By abandoning China, the United States played directly into the
hands of Russia. England and Germany must have seen this, but
they could not combat a plan of action which seemed on its face
so magnanimous to a fallen people, especially with France
co-operating with Russia.
The whole business must be gone over again. The weakness of
China will soon be revealed in plots and revolutions all over
the Empire; indignities will be again perpetrated upon
foreigners, and armed intervention will follow.
I cannot leave this question without a separate word about
France. The real position of France should be
isolation—waiting, watching, improving. The figure which she
presents to-day as an ally of Russia is false and unnatural. Let
me speak of France with candour and without reserve. Her
national progress is stopped, and an internal decay has set in,
which will sooner or later seriously affect her influence as a
first-class power. The reasons which impel me to reach this
painful conclusion are the following: The effort to establish
{23} a republican government in France, while not a failure, is
far from being a success. No student who has conscientiously
studied the history of the past one hundred years can truthfully
say that she has made real progress in government. The attempt
to sustain a republic in France has been almost grotesque. The
great, central, pivotal point of any serious government is
stability, which she has never even approached. Ministries are
blown over like card houses, by the mere ebullition of political
passion, and not as the result of a principle. The people are
genuinely surprised if a ministry lasts six months. In the
effort to establish a republic, two great fundamental
mistakes—among others—are made. First, the French congress and
government are held and administered in Paris, the very centre
of boiling passions and the hotbed and school of every
conflicting "ism" that arises to confound the good sense and
prudence of mankind. The seat of government in a republic must
be located away from the cosmopolitan influences of large
cities. It must be held in a place where calmness—and quiet
prevail, and where the officials of the government, and the
legislators, are removed from the intimidating noises and the
unhealthy influences of metropolitan journalism.
In the second place, the Cabinet should not participate in the
proceedings of the legislative bodies.
A cabinet is chosen to aid the president. As the cabinet members
are his family council they ought {24} to be in sympathy with
his political views, and with his plans, as executive, and their
tenure should be consistent with his pleasure. To place them in
a position similar to the Ministry of England, in which nation
the House of Commons represents the immediate sentiments of the
English people; to take one important feature of a
constitutional monarchy as it exists in England, and place it in
the body of a republic like that created in France, is anomalous
and incongruous; utterly out of sympathy and in discord with the
real purposes of a republic.
In a republic, a cabinet represents the president, not the
people. The noise, froth, and confusion which characterise
every overthrow of a French ministry in the Chamber of Deputies
is not the vox populi; the change is the result of coalitions,
sentiment, or passion; it is a momentary variation in the temper
of the legislators, often brought about by events so trivial
that one is almost ashamed of legislative bodies. These
topsy-turvy movements are not aimed at the executive, but are
demonstrations against the cabinet, whose constant overthrow
shows the instability of the administration and brings it into
contempt. The frequent downfall of a cabinet weakens the
confidence of the people in their government, although in fact
it may be purely superficial.
I cannot pursue the subject in detail. I leave much unsaid that
is important, but there are one or two more thoughts which press
upon me with force, and which still further illustrate the above
{25} views. France seems to be lacking the few great men who
could turn her course into better roads of national policy and
prosperity. She has no real leaders. Nor is the nation united in
its sympathies with a republican government. That form has no
great, genuine lovers in France. They love their country, but
not the political mantle which envelops it. Her leading men
doubt whether it is the best form for the government of her
people, or whether she should not be a monarchy. Democracies
thrive upon the love and enthusiasm of the people. If these
feelings are not present among the masses, the government is not
likely to be healthy. A fair proportion of Frenchmen are
socialists. What this means in France, no one has intelligently
defined or explained. So far as we can judge from a study of the
mass of stuff presented, called argument, it means a general
breaking up of society. Another class of Frenchmen favour a
monarchy; but perhaps the largest class is composed of true
republicans. These differences are vital and fundamental. They
go to the form and substance of government, not to its policy,
as in America, where every party cry, radical or conservative,
is attuned to the music of a republican federation, and which is
the sine qua non to all political conclusions. How can a
nation progress until its people have chosen, or are competent
to choose, a stable form of government, and are satisfied with
certain organic political principles?
Nothing illustrates the vacillation of France and her utter want
of stability more than her {26} alliance with Russia. The extent
and nature of this alliance is now known to be of a
comprehensive character—offensive and defensive. After France
was released from the last obligation of the Prussian war by the
payment of the money indemnity, it became the fixed, resolute,
and unswerving purpose of her people to regain Alsace and
Lorraine from the Germans. Her recuperative power was wonderful.
In a few years she was in the full vigour of a new national
life. The defeat which the nation had suffered rankled in the
bosoms of her people, and for years they thought of nothing but
revenge against Germany. The truth is that the result of the
Franco-Prussian war casts no reflection upon the moral or
physical courage of the French. The fault was that of Napoleon
III: the nation was taken unawares, and before she was ready,
Germany had her brave people by the throat. The victorious
Germans took good care to strengthen their hold on territories
wrested from France, by forming the Triple Alliance. In the
meantime, the former provinces of France have become in a great
measure Germanised. The longings of the people of Alsace and
Lorraine to again become part of France grow weaker every day,
as do the feelings of the French people to possess them.
Separation and time are both acting to diminish the chances of
their recovery. On the one side the inhabitants of the
territories are becoming acclimated to their new national life;
and on the other, the French people have become less intense in
their original determination to recover {27} them. A new
generation of people has grown up which did not participate in
the original struggle, and which lack the enthusiasm of the
original actors. Whether French diplomacy could have avoided or
thwarted this result, or whether the situation has come from
natural or uncontrollable conditions; upon either assumption,
the cold, disagreeable fact stares the French people in the
face, and they should look at the situation boldly and
philosophically—the recovery of these provinces is now a remote
possibility.
For years after the Prussian war, France was without an external
policy. She knew not where to turn—to the right or left. She
glanced with longing, scanning eyes over Europe, and could not
select a friend, associate, or ally. She would make no overtures
to her historic and falsely assumed national enemy—England; and
Germany, Austria, and Italy were tightly closed against her.
Russia presented the only open door to her, and after a long
courtship she entered into a political matrimony with that great
power. A union more unnatural, more lacking in harmony, more
ill-advised, could not be imagined. It was a great step for
Russia. She could use France admirably in the event of European
trouble. French money, and a French army and navy, would make a
powerful addition to her own military and naval resources. But
what can France possibly gain from such an alliance? Has anyone
sufficient ingenuity to plan a campaign by Russia against any
power of Europe which would produce an eventual benefit to
France? {28} Make up any combination you please and the result
would be sure loss to France. Her true policy was to rest where
she was—isolated and independent,—quietly abiding the time
when the Triple Alliance would be dissolved, or other European
complications might enable her to resume control over her lost
territories, if ever that were possible. If not, her policy was
peace—peace with the world. The alliance with Russia, in
advance of conditions which actually demanded or justified it,
in form at least, arraigns all Europe against her, and it does
her no possible good. The alliance with Russia is meaningless
and fruitless. If it has any effect, it is hurtful. The two
nations are as far apart as the poles. Point out the incident
and page of history where a similar union has been beneficial.
It shows a decline in France's external policy, in her prudence
and good judgment. It reflects the influences of a weak and
declining internal condition. France has forgotten Bonaparte's
solemn, almost pathetic appeal to his nation—"Make friends with
England." The cultivation of an enmity for England is France's
curse. There should be a complete revulsion of national feeling
in favour of England—the centre and the source of civilisation.
A true friendship with her could not fail to benefit France.
The overwhelming pride of the French, however, hides from them
her real internal and external condition. Her only national
policy should be peace with all the powers of the world. She
should strive to become a purely commercial nation, {29}
augmenting the attractions of French life to draw into her ***
the travellers and wealth of the world, and seek, by energy and
skill, to retain undiminished her commercial strength against
the powerful advances of the Americans.
France refuses to see or admit that since she has lost Alsace
and Lorraine much of her national prestige has gone, and while
still powerful in many ways, she is destined to second and
support, not to lead. Doubtless her people dearly love their
country, but they are indifferent to her institutions. They love
La belle France, but have no sympathy with her political
government. As their great writer, De Tocqueville, says in
another connection, they worship the statue, but forget what it
signifies. The French are brave and adventurous,—under the
inspiration of a great military or naval hero, they will go to
the extreme bounds of the earth in search of glory,—but they
will not immigrate or travel to found new colonies or foreign
homes. If a band of adventurous Frenchmen were to start
to-morrow on such a voyage, would it be earnestly coupled with
the desire to propagate the gospel of French republicanism? Half
of the army and the navy do not believe in republicanism: They
would be a sorry set of teachers to propagate the principles of
democracy among the natives of a new country. Expansion and
imperialism died with the great Napoleon. To-day France is
substantially sustained and held together by a species of
militarism. The great army moves like a machine to the wishes of
each temporary administration. {30} It eats up the vitals of the
people and compels them, at the same time, to enthusiastically
support it. The moment France gives birth to a great soldier or
sailor, he will capture the army and navy and change the form of
government into a monarchy or despotism. Deep love or respect
for existing administrations does not prevail. Instead of the
civil authority of sheriffs, constables, bailiffs, and
policemen, the military power is looked to as the real channel
for enforcing the decrees of government. The entire conception
and development of the army is contrary to true republican
principles.
In conclusion, France linked with Russia means nothing for her.
She might, with such an alliance, inflict serious damage on
England or Germany separately; but it would avail her naught.
She should speedily retire from the coalition. Remaining
isolated and independent, she can uphold her present prestige,
and through the mistakes of other nations she may add to her
territorial area, providing she maintains a stable government.
The thoughts, wishes, and energies of her statesmen should be
turned to the serious problem of making her people free,
prosperous, and happy; as a beginning towards which, let them
turn their attention to the eradication of the crying sin of
France, the seed that is ripening for her destruction—that evil
which Matthew Arnold calls "the worship of the goddess Aselgeia"
otherwise "Lubricity."
A final word. Remember, ye Anglo-Saxons, {31} that despite her
present condition, France is still, by reason of her large
internal resources and enormous wealth, her trained army and
modernly equipped navy, a great power in the world, and casting
her sword into the scale of events with one or more nations, she
can become an instrument of great good or evil. Friendship with
her should be cultivated, and her people should be made to see
that co-operation with you in your honourable efforts to help
mankind is the true line of her policy.
V.—THE SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE PEOPLE
The Spanish-speaking peoples, including the Portuguese, to-day
occupy or control 7,918,821 square miles of the territory of the
world, exclusive of 1,197,672 square miles in Spanish-African
islands, Portuguese Africa and Asia and the Philippines, which
would make a total of 9,116,493 square miles.
Their language is spoken in Europe, North, South, and Central
America, and in Cuba and Puerto Rico, by more than 80,000,000 of
people, which, added to the number of occupants of Spanish
African-islands, Portuguese Africa, Asia and the Philippines,
would bring the total who speak the Spanish and Portuguese
languages in excess of 97,000,000. The statistics are as
follows:
{32}
Population Square Miles
Spain 17,550,216 196,173
Portugal 5,428,659 36,038
22,978.875 232,211
Mexico 13,570,545 767,316
Guatemala 1,574,340 46,774
Salvador 915,512 7,228
Honduras 420,000 42,658
Nicaragua 420,000 51,660
Costa Rica 309,683 19,985
17,210,080 935,621
Cuba 1,600,000 41,655
Puerto Rico 953,243 3,600
19,763,323 980,876
Colombia 4,600,000 331,420
Venezuela 2,444,816 566,159
Brazil 18,000,000 3,218,130
Paruguay 600,000 145,000
Uruguay 840,725 72,112
Argentine Republic 4,800,000 1,095,013
Chili 3,110,085 256,860
Bolivia 2,500,000 472,000
Peru 3,000,000 405,040
Equador 1,300,000 144,000
41,195,626 6,705,734
Spanish Africa 437,000 203,767
Spanish Islands 127,172 1,957
Portuguese Africa 5,416,000 841,025
Portuguese Asia 847,503 7,923
Philippines 6,961,339 143,000
13,789,014 1,197,672
{33}
RÉSUMÉ.
Population Square Miles
In Europe 22,978,875 232,211
In North America and
Central America 17,210,080 935,621
In Cuba and Puerto
Rico 2,553,243 45,255
In South America 41,195,626 6,705,734
83,937,824 7,918,821
In Spanish Africa and
Islands. Portuguese
Africa and Asia and
Philippines 13,789,014 1,197,672
97,726,838 9,116,493[2]
What is the destiny of this numerous race? What relation do its
people hold to present and future international problems? What
influence will it have in the solution of these questions? As
long as the Spanish-speaking peoples remain scattered and
without a common purpose in view, its numbers will avail little
in the solution of the problems of this century. To be
effective, the Spanish and Portuguese people must act together—
as a whole.
Now, the striking feature of this race, to-day, is an absolute
want of political unity. It has no common and ultimate aim; in
fact, all its purposes seem to be discordant and inharmonious.
In numbers, the Spanish and Portuguese people exceed the
population of Germany and France combined, but their moral
influence, in an international sense, is imperceptible. Anything
like a real, determined {34} attempt to unite them has never
been made. In a word, they are disintegrated, without unity of
thought, action, or association.
I find it difficult, in discussing this subject, to separate my
feelings from my judgment. Sentiment, and some national pride
(for I am half Portuguese), struggle hard to impel me to paint a
glowing and radiant picture of the future of this race; but the
cold, hard facts of history confront me at every step, and it is
idle to attempt to distort or juggle with them. If we are to
judge the future by the present, the chances of the Spanish and
Portuguese people participating in the control of the world are
not the brightest. It seems but yesterday that Spain and
Portugal owned the greater part of the earth, and were its
dominating powers. By huge areas, their territory has vanished
from their possession and control until to-day Portugal hardly
attracts international attention, while Spain finds her dominion
almost shrunken to the proportions of her European peninsular
territory and plays a subordinate role in continental politics.
I know of no sadder picture in modern history. Let any one turn
for a moment to European literature of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, for the evidence of their preponderance.
In all international affairs Spain in particular is everywhere
seen as the first of powers. Her greatness, and the fear it
created, seem to start from every page. I cannot pause to go
into the causes of this or of the circumstances that favoured
it; they are well known. What have we since seen? Her
possessions, rights, {35} and powers have been wantonly
squandered—simply thrown away, as a result of policies and acts
which are utterly irreconcilable with rational principles of
true government.[3]
It is impossible not to admire and sympathise with the
individuals who comprise the Spanish and Portuguese people. They
are noble, warm, generous, brave, and honourable. Like the
Anglo-Saxons, they have been hardy rovers and adventurous
colonists. The discovery and exploration of new and unknown
fields have always been positive and prominent features of
Spanish and Portuguese ambition; and yet, when they have
acquired territories, they seem to have been utterly deficient
in the capacity of holding and uniting them into a great and
permanent empire. Individually, they possess all the qualities
which excite admiration and respect; aggregately, they seem to
lack those elements which so strongly typify the Anglo-Saxon
people, whose glory and solidarity now completely overshadow
them.
God forbid that I should make this statement in a spirit of
vainglory or boasting: I am merely recalling what is patent to
all who read history, even blindly. A comparison of the two
peoples shows that the dismemberment and decline of the Spanish
has been in an inverse ratio to the progress of the
Anglo-Saxons. As the one sank in the scale of national
prosperity, the other correspondingly rose in strength and
glory; and in candour it {36} must be added, the latter largely
at the expense of the former.[4]
Although physically disunited and scattered, and with no
definite, combined purpose of action, in numbers and individual
character the Spaniards and Portuguese are still a great people.
If they can be brought together they will be factors of the
highest importance. Can they, at this stage of their history,
cultivate a quality which they have hitherto
lacked—cohesiveness?
The age of territorial discoveries seems almost finished. New
fields, or new countries, are few. Everything that is to be
found has been laid bare to the eyes of the world, and the
telegraph gives us hourly pictures of the detailed life of the
remotest nations of the earth. With the exception of the poles
and the celestial bodies, the occupation of the explorer is
almost gone, and the diplomatists and publicists now turn their
eyes inward to a study of the possibilities of a division, or
separation, of present territorial ownership. The method of
acquiring title by occupancy can no longer be exercised, for
want of new territory; and the other methods of
acquisition—i.e., cession and conquest—now remain the sole
means of geographical aggrandisement. With no new fields to
explore, the scenes and events of history must be laid in old
places, and the diplomatic or political issues will be directed
to reapportioning, or redistributing, the old territories.
{37}
What part of this great international drama will be assigned to
the Spanish and Portuguese people? Can they dominate; or will
they be subordinate to one or more powers, and become absorbed
in the national life of the latter? Can there be a unification
of the Spanish and Portuguese people? Can they cure their
present political imperfections? Can they make a thorough
introspection of their condition, and follow the proper remedies
which it suggests? Can they turn their faces towards the common
goal of a free government? Is there a Moses among them, who can
lead this great people from the wilderness of political, moral,
and financial confusion into the broad plain of a free,
enlightened, and modern government?
I shall not undertake categorically to answer any of these
questions, but I shall briefly try to lay bare the general
existing conditions of the Spanish countries, from which proper
and fair deduction may be made. This study may enable us
correctly to determine—first, whether the Spaniards can unite;
and second, if united, whether they have the capacity to form a
permanent, federation, in time to anticipate the march and
progress of other nations, whose policy must be to absorb the
weaker races in their own political bodies.
I begin with Spain proper. In almost all the essentials of a
prosperous government, Spain is, at the present time, deficient.
Her treasury is depleted, and financial aid from the outside
world practically cut off, or obtainable only upon terms
humiliating or prohibitive.
{38}
Her army and navy are disorganised. The sources of wealth and
employment of the people are shrunken, and in some instances
absolutely gone.
Worse than all the above grave difficulties, her people are
disaffected with the government, thus giving countenance, on the
one hand, to open revolt against it by the advocates of
republicanism, and encouragement to the efforts and diplomacy of
the Carlists, on the other. Apart from this view, a determined
opposition to clericalism prevails, the success of which means
actual separation of State and Church, so long and unhealthfully
entwined in the operations and administration of the Spanish
government.
It will require a clear judgment and a skilful hand to extricate
the nation from all these entanglements. But I believe it can be
done, and that a wise and firm ruler can guide Spain into a
state of prosperity and internal peace, by the introduction of
radical reforms in her administration—reforms which will
demonstrate to her people that they are abreast with and enjoy
the blessings of the freest form of modern government. Whether
the boy-monarch who now governs Spain will be such a guide, I
cannot predict. But I believe that that country can thrive
better as a monarchy, conservatively administered, than as a
republic. That the people have felt the impulse existing in all
modern societies towards a government of laws combined with
freedom, we are assured by recent observers. As is natural, much
blindness and {39} indirection has hitherto attended their
efforts, but the spirit of the people, though overlaid,
survives, and along with it, a strong principle of fidelity and
sense of duty, making the best material out of which to build
institutions. These, with their noble and hitherto almost
impregnable territory, securing them in large measure from
foreign interference, constitute what may be called the capital
of their natural resources, moral and national. Drawn within
herself, self-depending, a new period of substantial greatness
may yet arise. Her patriotic fervour has other aliment than the
mere recollections of a never well-ascertained or well-founded
empire. She can recall that her race has never been subjugated;
that it defied for ages the power of the Romans and the
Saracens, and that Napoleon at the height of his power failed
utterly in the attempt.
If, however, owing to the weakness or inability of the present
King to sustain a monarchy, a republic must be tried by the
people; if one political experiment after another is to be added
to those of the past before a stable and satisfactory
government, of some kind, is inaugurated and established, the
influence of Spain, during such formative periods, as a party to
any consolidation or solidification of the Spanish people, will
be dissipated and become merely formal. She can and will
contribute nothing substantial to such a movement.
Moreover, if a monarchy is permanently continued in Spain and in
Portugal, the hereditary tendency and disposition will be
against a federation {40} of all the Spanish people, because
federation eventually means republicanism; and it is not natural
to believe that the families, in whose hands the monarchical
titles are now lodged, can be convinced that the good of the
whole Spanish and Portuguese people demands the relinquishment
and abandonment of their kingly titles and possessions. Monarchs
are sometimes forced to yield up their thrones, or are driven
therefrom, by the people; but the spectacle of a king
voluntarily surrendering his title for the benefit of his
subjects is a rare one. Besides, the indications are that the
Spanish people are at heart monarchical. France and her
unsatisfactory example may, as a determining cause, have much to
do with this tendency.
And in this instance the monarchs of Spain and Portugal can
point with considerable force to South and Central America to
show that the effort to establish republics among their branch
of the Latin race has not been thus far satisfactory, or at
least, successful.
But another party whose assent is essential to establish a
federation of the whole Spanish people is the United States of
America. What are her interests in the premises? What will she
say to the formation of a government of this kind, in which two
of the leading spirits would be European monarchies, i.e.,
Spain and Portugal? What application would be made of the
"Monroe Doctrine" to such a condition? I conclude, therefore,
that neither Spain nor Portugal would or could be an {41}
influential factor in the consolidation of the people speaking
their languages.
Can such a federation be established between the republics of
South and Central America and Mexico? This would be a government
which could start with a population of about 58,500,000 and
7,600,000 square miles of territory.
A common cause and a common necessity drove the thirteen
original American States together. But no such force is
operating upon the republics of Central, and South America; and
they failed to utilise the opportunities presented to them in
the past. They are all, more or less, suffering from internal
dissensions, and the precariousness of their republican
governments is not calculated to impress independent observers
with their efficacy, strength, or permanency; yet these
republics have no common enemy in Europe or in this country. In
fact, from the former, if one existed, they would be protected
by the well-settled policy of the United States. Is the United
States likely, in any just sense, to become their enemy—an
enemy, not of the people, but of the form and method of
administering their government? Will not such a condition soon
exist in some, or all, of these republics, as will justify and
make intervention necessary, on the part of the United States,
as was made in Cuba? Could such a possibility drive these
republics into a federation, to anticipate what their leaders
might term "a coming danger"?
Common jealousies and internal disorders will {42} for some time
keep the South American republics from consolidation; but the
people of the United States are coming closer and closer, each
year, to all of these Spanish republics, and will sooner or
later, unless avoided by delicate diplomacy, become actively
interested in the affairs of their governments. At that time
either one of two things will ensue: the formation of a Latin
American federation; or gradual annexation to the United States.
As a preliminary to either, or to any, event, would it not be
wisdom in this country to tender these republics absolute
freedom of commercial intercourse?
And how does Mexico stand? At present she occupies a peculiar
and wholly anomalous position. Although in form a republic,
Mexico is in fact a despotism. She is ruled by one man, whose
authority is unlimited. President Diaz is the absolute and only
power in the Mexican government. In theory he holds his title
from the people, but his will is omnipotent. And withal, the
thirteen millions of Mexicans who make up the population of the
different states of the so-called Mexican republic are well
governed: thus lending confirmation to the statement, often
made, that a despotism, when the despot is a patriot and a wise
and pure man, is the best form of government that can be
established. As long as President Diaz lives, Mexico will
probably continue to be well governed, because her ruler is
competent in every sense—honest, capable, strong; and ambitious
only to behold his country {43} develop and prosper. But when he
dies, what will ensue? Not the regime of another patriotic
despot. They do not come in succession, and they do not have
political heirs. "God makes not two Rienzis." Diaz's death will
reveal to the Mexican people—what they seem, notwithstanding
their theories, never clearly to have appreciated—that they
live under a republic which gives them the control of all
political power. When this period arrives, how many Mexicans
will be found capable of exercising the functions of citizenship
intelligently and patriotically? Will not a majority of them be
dupes or tools in the hands of designing political leaders? Who
can assume to rule as Diaz? Whom do they know but Diaz? Is not
the population of Mexico inferior, in general intelligence and
in the duties of citizenship, to that of any other South
American republic? What of the Mexican Indians? How far have
they been instructed in the duties of government? What kind of a
candidate would they favour? And what will be the outlook for
the people under an administration elected by popular vote? I
shall attempt to answer all these questions together. The mass
of the Mexican people have had no preliminary training for true
republican citizenship and government. Diaz's death will produce
revolution,—peaceable or armed,—and it will occasion such
trouble and turbulence, along the border lines of their
territories, that it will become the duty of the United States
to preserve order thereon. The interior of Mexico will be thrown
{44} into confusion, and the conservative people of the Mexican
republic will, in due course of time, appeal to and demand aid
from the American republic, as the Cubans did; they will ask for
protection, or perhaps annexation. This will not transpire
over-night, but it will be the inevitable outcome of history.
The difficulties in the way of consolidation of the Spanish and
Portuguese people, therefore, seem to me to be insurmountable. A
necessary party to any such federation of a part or all of them
is the United States of America; and her consent probably could
never be obtained. She is the great, dominating, absorbing
power, of the North and South American continents. Her policy
must be freedom, equality, and protection to all. She will
invade no territories, nor deprive any people, against their
will, of the government under which they live. What comes into
her family from Mexico will fall into her possession as a ripe
apple drops into the lap of earth, naturally, and because the
period of complete fruition has arrived.
I have endeavoured to sketch frankly, though briefly, the
conditions of the Spanish people and the relation which the
United States bears to them, especially to those of this
continent. I may be in advance of political thought and
judgment—I may have attempted to reveal too much of the future
horizon to suit the tardy progress of political calculations.
But in considering great international questions, frankness and
broad views are necessary. The future is generally of more
importance than the present. A policy of patching {45} up or
mending existing conditions is always misleading and dangerous.
This was seen in our treatment of the Chinese question. We are
already experiencing it in relation to Cuba. We started out with
a high-sounding proclamation of our intentions, which
overlooked, or ignored, the true and permanent interests of the
people of that island. "Fourth. That the United States hereby
disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the
pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that
is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the
island to its people."[5] Our hands ought to be free to act as
circumstances should disclose or dictate. We are now, or soon
shall be, confronted with conditions in Cuba which will require
us to retreat from our lofty premises and to violate our own
declaration. It is a crying evil that in the treatment of great
public questions our statesmen will not act with openness and
frankness, but constantly seek refuge behind false or
hypocritical explanations, or use subterfuges to conceal their
real thoughts and purposes. It was perfectly manifest that
without a preliminary or probative period, the Cubans would not
be in any condition to govern themselves, and that an experiment
of the present kind must end in misfortune to these people. To
put the tools or implements of a free government in their hands
and turn them loose to experiment among themselves was an act of
folly on our part, {46} and dissipated the advantages gained by
independence.
But one word more, apropos of the whole question of the
relations of the Anglo-Saxon race to the Russians, Chinese,
Spaniards, and Portuguese. Considered either separately or as a
whole, they furnish a subject of supreme interest and importance
to our people. To me they alone are sufficient and a full cause
for a prompt understanding between us. United and acting
sympathetically, we can more or less shape the events of the
future by a wise and truly beneficent policy. If the English and
American statesmen do not agree with me, but leave this question
to fate, as it were, there may come storms, cross-currents,
deflections, and all manner of unforeseen opposing forces, which
will render the unification of our people impossible or futile.
Perhaps this is our destiny—but I think not.[6]
And be it clearly understood that in all I have said, I merely
indicate what I believe to be the inevitable drift of
things—the handwriting upon the wall. With the public morality
and the intermediate questions of international law depending on
{47} that morality, I am not at present concerned. It is
impossible to regulate these questions in advance, and it is
assuredly true that such considerations, however well grounded,
have never long delayed a general tendency. History, in all its
stages, conjectural, traditional, and authentic, discloses with
almost painful clearness that there are underlying forces
governing the progress of the human race, which are made
manifest in successive ages only by their results, and with
which conscious volition seems to have but little to do. We in
this country only exemplify a general truth (a truth easily
ascertainable by a glance at our circumstances), which operates
none the less strongly because with our cultivated sentiments we
sometimes rebel against its necessary sequences. The only
question for me is, how can this truth be best applied—how best
utilised. If I am right in what I have said of the Anglo-Saxon
race in its two great branches, the inference becomes clear. To
that race primarily belongs in a preponderating degree the
future of mankind, because it has proved its title to its
guardianship. But it is in the firm union of that race, in its
steady co-operation, and in its undeviating adherence to its
common ideals, that the whole success of the experiment, or of
what remains of the experiment, now depends.
[1] I select in this connection an extract from an article in
the North American Review, June, 1898, by Hon. David Mills,
Canadian Minister of Justice, entitled "Which shall dominate,
Saxon or Slav?"
"Let us consider the aims of Russia, as shown by what she has
attempted and accomplished in modern times. The Russian
statesman loves conquest. With him it is a habit of mind. Russia
is a great Asiatic power, employing the resources of western
civilisation to further her ambitious designs. Her conquests are
not the outcome of industrial enterprise. They have not sprung
from the necessities of commerce. Her acquisitions have not
arisen from a desire to find a profitable investment for her
capital. They are due entirely to a love of dominion. In the
last century, she acquired all the territory lying between her
western border, and the Gulf of Bothnia, and the Baltic Sea. She
acquired the greater part of Poland and the whole of
Crim-Tartary. In this century she has obtained Finland from
Sweden, Bessarabia and a part of Armenia from Turkey. She has
acquired the Caucasus, Georgia, several provinces of Persia, and
the whole country from the Caspian Sea, on the west, to the
borders of China, on the east, including Samarcand, Bakhara,
Khiva, and Merv, besides a large section of North-eastern China.
Russia is the one great state of the world that pays no regard
to her treaty obligations longer than it is convenient for her
to do so. Her territories cover an area nearly three times as
large as the United States, and are being constantly extended.
If she finds resistance at any point upon her borders, she rests
there, and pushes forward her boundaries where those upon whom
she encroaches are not prepared to stay her march. What she
acquires is hers absolutely, the trade of the people no less
than her dominion over them. Not the slightest reliance can be
put upon her promises. She regards falsehood as a legitimate
weapon in diplomacy, as deceit is in war. In Afghanistan, which
she declared to be outside of the sphere of Russian diplomacy,
and within the sphere of diplomacy of England, she carried on
constant intrigues against English authority. Her
representatives sought to stir up rebellion. She endeavoured to
obtain the consent of its rulers for the construction of a road
that would lead to India, and for the purchase of supplies that
would support an army of invasion on their march. She never
gives up any purpose which she has once formed. More than eight
centuries ago she marched an army of 80,000 men to conquer the
Byzantine Empire, and to seize Constantinople. What she then
undertook, and failed to accomplish, she has never abandoned. It
has been from time to time postponed for a more fitting
opportunity. She lost six great armies in the march from the
Caspian to Samarcand, and two centuries elapsed from the time
when she contemplated this conquest before it was consummated.
If the Russian Empire holds together, she counts on the conquest
of Turkey, of Persia, of India, and of China.
"If Russia succeeds in the task to which she has set herself she
will hold seventeen millions of square miles of territory, and
she will have under her dominion nine hundred millions of
people. The fall of the British Empire is regarded by Russian
statesmen as essential to the realisation of her hopes. Let me
ask: What would be the position of the world, with so much
territory and so many people under one ruler, wielding the power
necessary to the realisation of his wishes? It is only necessary
to study the commercial and industrial policy of Russia to
discover that she would trample into the earth every people that
might aspire to better their position or to become in any way
her rivals. In every department of commerce, and in every field
in which greatness might be achieved, her rulers would regard
any attempt at success as an attack upon her supremacy.
"In the discussion of this question I embrace the United States
as a part of the Anglo-Saxon community. I do so because, in the
present position of the race, and of the work which obviously
lies before it, the loss of British supremacy in the world would
be scarcely less disastrous to the United States than it would
be to the British Empire. It is true that the United States,
under the present order of things, has room for further
expansion. But the present order of things rests upon
Anglo-Saxon supremacy. Even within her existing limits, she may
grow for many years to come; and if Turkey, Persia, India, and
China were added to the empire of Russia, the whole position of
the world would be completely changed; the condition of things
on this continent would be revolutionised. With the power thus
centred under Russian control and directed from St. Petersburg,
with the valley of the Euphrates occupied by Russians devoted to
agriculture, with the frontiers of that mighty Empire resting
upon the Indian Ocean; and with the whole commerce of Asia in
her possession, Russia would, as a natural consequence of these
tremendous additions, become the dominant sea power. The Pacific
Ocean would be a Russian lake, and her eastern frontiers would
rest upon the western shore of North America. The British
Islands would rapidly diminish in population, until the number
of inhabitants would be such as the product of the soil would
naturally support. The United Kingdom could no longer be a
market for the breadstuffs of this continent, and European
immigration to America would cease. Russia would rapidly grow in
wealth and in population, but no country in the Western
Hemisphere would do either; for the great markets of the world
would be in the possession of a power that would use them to
cripple the commerce of any state which would, in any degree,
aspire to become her rival.
"In the highest sense the United States has not, and cannot
have, an independent existence. Her fortune is inseparably
associated with the race to which she belongs, in which her
future is wrapt up, and in which she lives and moves and has her
being. The unity between the United States and the British
Empire is a matter both of race and growth. They touch each
other, and as peoples unite and great states arise, they must
be, for all great international purposes, one people."
[2] The World Almanac and Encyclopedia, 1903. p. 353.
[3] See in this connection an interesting article by Henry
Charles Lea, entitled "The Decadence of Spain," Atlantic
Monthly, July, 1898.
[4] In 1801, 20.9 per cent. of the people who spoke the European
languages were Spanish, and only 12.7 per cent. were English;
but in 1890 the ratio was changed to 13.9 per cent. Spanish and
27 per cent. English.
[5] Act of Congress, April 20, 1898.
[6] In this connection I call attention again to the article of
Hon. David Mills, Canadian Minister of Justice (heretofore
quoted from, ante, p. 13), North American Review, June, 1898:
"The interests of the world call for Anglo-Saxon alliance. Let
not the British Empire and the United States revive, after the
lapse of centuries, the old contest of Judah and Ephraim; but,
remembering that their interests are one, as the race is one,
let them stand together, to maintain the ascendency which they
will hold as long as Providence fits them to lead; which will be
as long as, in their dealings with those beneath them, they are
actuated by principles of justice and truth."
{48}
CHAPTER II
THE ORIGIN AND FORM OF THE SUGGESTED ALLIANCE BETWEEN ENGLAND
AND THE UNITED STATES
I.—HOW THE SUGGESTION AROSE
Out of the conditions and events to which I have first alluded
there arose what I call a desultory, scattered, but emphatic,
sentiment among many English-Americans for a closer union, a
feeling that a permanent relation of some kind should be
established between the United States and the British Empire.
There is a prevailing opinion that our race should be more
sympathetic, that we should live closer together, know each
other better, and think and act in unison on great questions
affecting our mutual progress and welfare; in other words, that
we should interfuse in our thoughts, acts, and exterior policy.
This sentiment for union came upon us suddenly and unexpectedly;
it was natural and spontaneous. It was not the creation of man's
ingenuity; it was not the invention of diplomacy; it was an
evolution. A continuity of a chain of organisms, extending from
{49} the lowest to the highest, is an evolution. "Tous les ages
sont enchaînés par une suite de causes et d'effets que lient
l'état du monde à tous ceux qui l'ont précédé."[1]
The existing feeling among the people calling for a nearer and
closer relationship of the English-speaking race is the
recognition of this evolution.
The belief that steps should be taken to put this feeling into
some practicable and tangible shape does not emanate from one
country, but it comes from both. It springs not from official or
diplomatic sources; it is the spontaneous utterance of the
people of both countries.
The peculiar, isolated fact which brought this question to
light, and to the attention of the two nations, was the
Spanish-American War. The moral support which England gave to
America in that struggle caused it to develop, and brought about
its further propagation. England's position in that war was not
manifested in any official or recognised diplomatic manner, but,
by some kind of language, intimation, or action known and
understood in the courts of Europe, the continental powers were
made to understand that she would permit no interference with
the United States in the conduct of the war.
Spain also had her friends. At least two great continental
powers sympathised with her in the struggle she was making
against such enormous odds, and the current belief is that if
England's {50} position in this war had not been well known,
those powers, with others in the sphere of their attraction,
would have manifested their sympathy for Spain in a substantial
and combined way. In short, the United States would have had to
oppose a European combination. It is not claimed that any such
combination was actually formed. The prevailing feeling was that
one would have been formed if England's sentiments had not been
fully known and declared. Whether this be so or not is now
immaterial. I am simply tracing the history of the movement. I
am describing the situation as it then appeared.
I find, therefore, that it was a natural condition of affairs
which spontaneously brought to the surface this thought of an
alliance between England and the United States. In the course of
events, the situation of England and the United States, standing
vis-à-vis to all, or several, of the continental powers, was a
strong possibility, and it set the English-speaking races
seriously thinking about their fate under such circumstances.
The political and military horoscope of Europe was laid bare to
them, and they were confronted, for the first time in their
history, with the possibility of a war in which they might find
themselves in armed opposition to two, or more, or all, of the
continental powers of Europe. In truth, many urgent and earnest
appeals were, and are, constantly made, in desultory newspaper
articles, and in various unofficial ways, in favour of a
coalition of the continental powers of Europe against what is
termed {51} the "Anglo-Saxon race." The usual arguments are used
and the usual epithets applied. They are accused, as race
attributes, of "greed," "rapacity," "brutality," and, what is
worse, of "hypocrisy." Engaged, as we of the United States were
at that period, in a war which we believed to be righteous, we
were for the first time in a position to estimate at their
proper value such accusations when applied to England herself,
and how far they might be considered as the product of senseless
fear and blind jealousy and envy.
Before the Spanish War began, no one seriously thought of, or
considered, an alliance. It is true that the reading classes
among us generally found that in proportion as their knowledge
extended beyond one or two given points, their respect and
admiration for England became increasingly great. But in
practice it was always with some difficulty that the ordinary
affairs of national intercourse and business could be adjusted
between her and the United States. Like members of the same
family, we became easily excited, and were always ready, under
such circumstances, to say disagreeable, intemperate, and biting
things of each other.
England's covert support and open sympathy with the United
States changed our feelings towards the mother country; it
awakened our gratitude, and aroused European fear and envy. When
Manila was captured by Dewey a new scene in international
history was unfolded. The event revealed to the full gaze of
astonished Europe the tremendous power and influence of the {52}
British Empire and the United States acting in concert.
While there was no actual compact or treaty between the English
and Americans, the diplomats of Europe were quick to imagine
one. A spectre is always more alarming, and often more
effective, than a reality. The situation of affairs was the same
as if a treaty had actually existed. The friction, the
misunderstandings, the fretfulness, which theretofore existed
between the United States and England, and which the other
powers of Europe relied upon as a sufficient barrier to prevent
any concerted policy between them, suddenly disappeared, and
they stood before the world as friends and allies. Here was a
new and undreamed-of combination. The cards of diplomacy must be
reshuffled, and in future deals the strong possibility of the
Anglo-Saxon race being found together, solidly unified, must be
considered and provided against.
It should be remembered, that the support given to the
Americans, in the Spanish War, was not merely formal, although
not sanctioned by treaty. It subjected England to the risk of
being involved in serious complications with the other nations
of Europe. She took all the risk and responsibility of allowing
an impression to prevail that her sympathy, and support, if need
be, were with the United States. All the moral force of an
actual treaty resulted to the United States from the situation.
The position of England, in fact, was precisely the same as if
she had openly avowed {53} herself as, and contracted to become,
an ally of the United States, and the Americans distinctively
gained by it. This episode cannot now be lightly brushed aside.
It should never be forgotten by the American people. It was a
generous act on the part of the British nation openly to tender
its sympathy to the United States. It was voluntary and
unsolicited. England did not stop to discuss and analyse the
causes of the war with Spain. She placed herself by our side on
the broad grounds familiar to her own people, and gave us full
credit for the rectitude of our intentions, as proclaimed by
ourselves.
There was no qualification attached to her sympathy. It would
have been an easy task for casuists and international lawyers to
have raised an argument in favour of Spain, but it was not heard
in England. There were no public meetings in the British Empire
to protest against our war with Spain: none of her orators, or
well-known public men, or high officials, denounced our conduct
as unjustifiable or unrighteous. Not a word of that kind was
heard from any respectable quarter. There was never an occasion
in history when national gratitude was more justly due from one
nation to another. The less we say as to how this debt has been
repaid the better our feelings and manners. We must, at least,
candidly admit that many American criticisms of England in the
Boer War have been in a very different spirit—sufficiently
ill-bred, harsh, and unfriendly. That may be passed by.
Difference of opinion on such subjects {54} is natural, and
language is generally exaggerated in proportion to ignorance of
the subject. But a more recently developed sentiment among us is
deserving of severer censure: a few of our people are disposed
to turn the sympathy and assistance of England at that critical
moment into a ground of complaint against her; not only is her
friendship denied and denounced, but she is accused of having
beguiled us into the paths of imperialism, and our rulers share
in the denunciation, as having succumbed to her blandishments—a
monstrous and wholly unique instance of political perversity.
It must not be assumed, however, that a feeling of gratitude, on
the part of the United States, should be manifested or repaid by
making an alliance with England. This would be mere
sentiment,—commendable but misplaced. An alliance based upon
such a foundation would be built upon quicksand. Gratitude is a
noble quality, but it is more dangerous than gunpowder when
applied to political affinities.
But to return to the main subject; the thought of an alliance
between the English-speaking people grew out of the
Spanish-American War, and speculations, at first limited to a
purely military view, of an offensive and defensive treaty
between the two nations, for temporary purposes, have gradually
grown and enlarged, until they have led to conjecture concerning
the whole future of the English-speaking nations, their wealth
and resources, their religious, moral, and political growth and
destiny: they have also led to researches into {55} the history
of the past; thus embracing both a backward and forward view.
Happily, the thought of an alliance has sunk deeply into the
minds of many serious people, who realise that in a seemingly
accidental, certainly unpremeditated, way, a great historical
truth has been uncovered, which, in its full growth and
maturity, may lead to the greatest epoch in the history of the
English-speaking race. The Spanish-American War, lamentable as
it was in some of its aspects, inevitable in others, surprising
in all, may hereafter be regarded as an event of supreme
importance in the history of England and the United States, just
as the accidental discovery of the Corpus Juris Civilis was to
the world of that period, in enabling it to form new conceptions
of law, and through these conceptions to advance many steps in
its progress from barbarism to civilisation; or, to bring the
illustration closer home to us, as the accidental assembling of
a few enterprising men in a London inn gave rise to the
undertaking of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, and that, in its indirect
results, to the enormous possibilities inherent in the fact of
the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon race on this continent.
II.—THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE FORM OF THE PROPOSED ALLIANCE
Although much has already been said and written upon this great
subject in the United States and England, the suggestions
respecting closer relationship have been most general and
indefinite; and, {56} with a single exception,[2] so far as I
can discover, no one has ventured to outline a plan by which a
tangible result can be reached. It is agreed that a "better
feeling," a "better understanding," a "better knowledge" of each
other, a "closer union," more "intimate relations," an
"entente," should exist between the people of the two
countries.
But what is meant by these terms, or, when defined, how to carry
them into practical effect, is left in total darkness. It is
impossible to make any real progress in the discussion of the
question, unless some accurate landmarks are made; a
starting-point must be fixed, from which arguments I may
proceed, and upon which conclusions may be established.
To an intelligent discussion of any subject, a definition is a
sine qua non. What is meant by "alliance," "union," a "better
understanding," a "closer relationship," "interfusion," an
"entente," and terms of like import? It is in vain that the
citizens of both countries may wish or hope for a better
understanding, or that a better feeling, or a closer relation,
or union, should exist between them. It is said that idle wishes
are the most idle of all idle things.
In what does closer relationship consist? And how shall it be
brought about and cemented? What is the thing to be
accomplished? What are the reasons for its accomplishment? And
by what {57} methods can it be accomplished? These are the
salient inquiries.
In search of light upon this question, I have taken as a basis
of discussion a resolution adopted by the "Anglo-American
League," a society formed in London in the summer of 1898,
consisting of representative individuals, chosen from all grades
of social, political, civil, and commercial life, which was as
follows[3]:
"I. Considering that the peoples of the British Empire and of
the United States of America are closely allied in blood,
inherit the same literature and laws, hold the same principles
of self-government, recognise the same ideals of freedom and
humanity in the guidance of their national policy, and are drawn
together by strong common interests in many parts of the world,
this meeting is of the opinion that every effort should be
made, in the interest of civilisation and peace, to secure the
most cordial and constant co-operation between the two
nations."
Here is a clear and well-defined presentation of the subject:
first, the _postulate, i.e., _the people of the two countries
are closely allied in blood, inherit the same literature and
laws, hold the same principles of self-government, recognise the
same ideals of freedom and humanity in the guidance of their
national policy, and are drawn together by strong common
interests in many parts of the world; second, the _motive, i.e.,
_in the interest of civilisation and peace; third, the
_conclusion, i.e., _every effort should be made to secure the
most cordial and constant co-operation.
{58}
This resolution crystallises the combined thought of all the
orators and writers who have contributed to this subject; and
furnishes a clear text for a full discussion of the whole
question. The facts contained in the resolution, that we are
"closely allied in blood, inherit the same literature and laws,
hold the same principles of self-government, recognise the same
ideals of freedom and humanity, . . . and are drawn together by
strong common interests in many parts of the world," are
sufficiently serious to justify and support the conclusion that
"every effort should be made . . . to secure the most cordial
and constant co-operation between the two nations,"—especially
as the high and noble motive which impels this effort is "in the
interest of civilisation and peace." Here is a "motive and a
cue" which should enlist, not the Anglo-Saxon race alone, but
the sympathy of the whole Christian world.
But how, when, and by whom are such "efforts" to be made, to
secure this "most cordial and constant co-operation between the
two nations "? The resolution, speeches and articles referred to
give little or no light on these important points. No plan is
laid down; no ways or means suggested by which objects so highly
extolled and so important, shall be accomplished. The public men
of both countries advocate an entente, a "cultivation of
better relations" between the two peoples. They shudder at the
mere suggestion of a written treaty or executed alliance. In
these respects their advice and acts are conservative. But is it
{59} safe to leave the subject in this indefinite condition?
Should we not advance another step or two in the direction of a
real national fraternity? The question should not be allowed to
remain in this doubtful and unsatisfactory state. The noble
purposes of this resolution cannot be attained by mere words.
Acts must follow the wishes and declarations. Every
assertion of this resolution should be clearly and explicitly
proven; the objects to be accomplished by co-operation
demonstrated; and the plans by which they shall be carried into
effect determined, and, if practicable, enforced.
At present we have advanced no farther in the question than
this: It appears that many persons on both sides of the Atlantic
have a wish, a feeling, a sentiment, a belief, a conviction,
that it is for the mutual benefit of the British Empire and the
United States that co-operation, interfusion, union, should be
permanently established between the two countries.
This is the first step in the movement. Discussion, argument,
controversy, properly precede acts. A spirit of scepticism, as
Buckle says,[4] certainly a spirit of inquiry, must arise
previous to actual steps being made in any great movement. But,
if the statements contained in this resolution are correct, it
is the duty of every citizen of England and the United States,
in fact, the duty of citizens of all countries, to commence the
agitation of the question; to bend their energies to its
solution, and to {60} aid in the quick and complete consummation
of co-operation. If the purpose of co-operation is to secure
"civilisation and peace" to the inhabitants of the world, it is
not merely the business of Englishmen and Americans to see that
it succeeds, but it is a matter in which all mankind is
interested. The question is not limited to those of the
English-speaking family; it is as broad as humanity itself.
No reason has been assigned why the consummation of this
important subject should be postponed or evaded. On the
contrary, existing conditions require that it should be pushed
to a solution. It has come to stay—to be solved. Great events
cannot be ripped, untimely, from the womb of history. They are
born at regular periods of political gestation, and when thus
ushered into the world, become ripe for discussion and action.
They cannot be smothered. They must be met and settled. Of
course, the professional politicians, especially those of the
United States, will not touch this great subject of "union."
They will await events. They will gauge its popularity. They
will study its effect and influence upon the Irish and German
vote. They will play with it until it becomes a burning,
absorbing, national topic, and when the wind of popular approval
blows that way, they will outrival each other in its advocacy.
The politicians are born for the hour. A learned, thoughtful,
and dispassionate advocacy of any public question, by a
professional politician, would be a rara avis in national
life. The inherent strength, reason, and justice of great public
questions, are never considered {61} by these nimble
gentlemen—in fact, perhaps they never were. The business of
politics involves only the present. The motto of the politicians
is "Policy," "Expediency"; not "Truth," "Reason," and
"Stability." In the primitive stages of this discussion,
therefore, it is left in the hands of the independent,
non-partisan thinkers. This class must mould it into tangible,
practical shape, before it can be brought into the realm of
ordinary politics.
III.—DEFINITION OF CO-OPERATION, ALLIANCE, UNION, OR COMPACT
Our first aim, therefore, is to discover what kind of
co-operation should be established between the two nations. And
this may be accomplished by stating what is not meant to be
included in the term.
I take it that the sincere advocates of co-operation, union,
interfusion, do not mean, by these or kindred terms, an
"offensive and defensive" treaty, or alliance, between the
United States and the British Empire, for the mere temporary
purpose of commercial or material aggrandisement, or conquest,
or for military or naval aggression, or defence. If that be the
scope and limit of this movement, it might as well be dropped,
as utterly and wholly impracticable. In fact, an offensive and
defensive treaty, in its common acceptation, has already been
discarded by the advocates of union. The great end and purpose
of the resolution, to "secure civilisation and peace," cannot be
attained {62} by such means. To ascertain the source from which
co-operation and interfusion between the English-speaking people
arises, to distinguish Anglo-Saxon union from other forms of
international alliance, it seems a necessary prelude to the
discussion of the subject to recall the primary ends of
government. In whatever form it exists, its ends may all be
summed up in the idea of benefit, or advantage. It is so in the
most arbitrary despotism that ever existed among men; it is so
in the most enlightened free system; the difference being that
through progressive development in the several succeeding
conditions of society, the free government confers greater
benefit and advantage. We need not now consider the former; we
have to do with the latter only. As it is, in the modern sense,
its raison d'etre is the harmonious blending of all classes of
society; the preservation of the essential interests, wisely
understood, of the people; the preservation of an open field for
the exercise of every virtue and every talent, and, subject to
these, the performance of every duty enjoined by good
neighbourhood, and the encouragement of every tendency and
impulse which points to the amelioration of mankind, at home or
abroad. Such is the idea of a commonwealth, constructed on true,
liberal principles, and sanctified by Christianity.
As an individual is endowed with intellectual, moral, and
physical functions for the purpose of ennobling his own
existence, benefiting his fellow-men, and reaching by these
means a higher plane of moral and religious life, so government,
{63} as we now understand it, is organised to place it within
the power of men to enjoy to their fullest extent, religious,
civil, and political liberty; or, to express it in another way,
to give an individual those rights, privileges, and liberties
which the true and purest thoughts of the past ages have
determined as the best rule for his real happiness.
The peculiar and striking characteristic, or virtue, of the
Anglo-Saxon people is, that they understand the objects for
which governments are instituted more directly, and apply them
more successfully and broadly than other peoples. They keep more
closely in view the origin and aim of political society in its
relation to individuals, and to other nations—to the world at
large. Montesquieu frankly made this admission in 1748, when he
said: "They know better than any other people upon earth how to
value at the same time those three great advantages, religion,
commerce, and liberty."[5] And Mommsen made the same
admission when, with evident reference to the English race, he
said, it knows how to combine "a love of freedom with a
veneration for authority."
And Mr. Webster uttered the same thought:
"I find at work everywhere, on both sides of the Atlantic, under
various forms and degrees of restrictions on the one hand, and
under various degrees of motive and stimulus, on the other hand,
in these branches of a common race, the great principle of the
freedom of human thought, and the respectability of individual
character. I find, everywhere, an elevation of the character of
man as man, an elevation of the individual as a component part
of society. I find everywhere a rebuke {64} of the idea, that
the many are made for the few, or that government is anything
but an agency of mankind. And I do not care beneath what zone,
frozen, temperate, or torrid; I care not what complexion, white
or brown; I care not under what circumstances of climate or
cultivation, if I can find a race of men on an inhabitable spot
of Earth whose general sentiment it is, and whose general
feeling it is, that government is made for man—man as a
religious, moral, and social being—and not man for
government—there I know, I shall find prosperity and
happiness."[6]
In the foregoing we have the motive and justification for a
combination of the Anglo-Saxon people.
The words "to advance civilisation" have been very frequently
used in the discussion of this topic as a motive for alliance or
relationship. This word "civilisation" is an easy word to invoke
to cover false policies, and is often flippantly applied without
a real idea of its scope. It is important therefore, to have a
clear understanding of its meaning. It means, primarily, to
reclaim from a savage or semibarbarous state. This, then,
presents the first step in the efforts of a nation—I may say
its first duty—to those within and without the fold of its
sovereignty—to reclaim mankind from a barbarous and savage
state. The conquests of savage tribes and nations have been many
times justified upon this broad principle; such historical
events as the conquest of America and of British India can
perhaps only be supported on these grounds. The {65} attainment
and diffusion of civilisation is not accomplished without much
suffering and loss, but this is as natural as the growth of a
plant from the seed. Pain and suffering are the inevitable
concomitants of birth and growth. Man is ushered into the world
through the travail of his mother, and the birth of civilisation
is not excepted from the rule which applies to particular
individuals.
To introduce order and civic organisation among those
reclaimed from a savage or barbarous state is the secondary
meaning of the term "civilise." Order is a necessary element in
the formation and development of society. To understand and
apportion among men their respective positions in society; to
define all the rights and duties of individuals and put them in
their proper places, is the great aim of government; and as
order is "Heaven's first law," so it is the corner-stone of
human association. As nothing is more pleasing and striking to
the human eye than a well-regulated and orderly household,
everything in its place, clean, refined, and harmonious, so
nothing is so necessary to a good government as simple, proper,
well-defined, orderly rules of conduct for its citizens. A
nation which invades and conquers a savage tribe, or uncivilised
nation, and in place of the chaos, confusion, and at times
unspeakable cruelties which there prevail, introduces order,
civic government, and humanity, is creditably fulfilling its
ambition and national purposes.
In the noble words of Cicero "nothing earthly is more acceptable
to that first and omnipotent {66} God who rules the universe,
than those Councils and assemblages of men (duly ordered) which
are called States."
But following the reign of law, the profound significance of
which I will not now pause to dwell on, there is a third meaning
attached to "civilise": it means to refine and enlighten;
elevation in social and individual life. In the second and
third meanings of this term, we have the guarantees of liberty,
justice, equality, fraternity. After the first step, therefore,
of conquest, reclaiming people from a semi-barbarous or savage
state, there comes the second state of civilisation,—order and
civic government,—followed by the third degree,—refinement and
enlightenment, elevation in social and individual life. These
different stages of national growth are all illustrated in the
progress of civilisation.
Now, the history of the English-speaking race shows a constant
advance from a semi-barbarous state to a high degree of
civilisation. It has never gone backwards in its march from one
degree of civilisation to another. At times, it is true, it has
been diverted; at other times, generally from the pressure of
external causes, it has apparently paused, and it has seemed as
if its mission were at an end; but it soon resumed the forward
movement, until to-day it leads the van of civilisation; i.e.,
barbarism has disappeared to give way to order and civic
government, and refinement and enlightenment pervade, create,
and elevate social and individual life. One can trace the
progress of the English nation as plainly as the {67} growth and
development of a human being; from weak, puerile infancy into
strong and sturdy manhood; suffering all the diseases that flesh
is heir to, but eventually overcoming them, and advancing with
renewed vigour and health in the march of its destiny.
I mean no offence to other nations—all modern European
governments have shared in a general way in the same movement;
all may have their specific excellences, but we know our own
best, and are justified in thinking that it is more indigenous,
better built and better founded, follows surer methods, and is
more conspicuously entitled to gain the applause and fulfil the
expectations of mankind.
I therefore lay it down as a basis of an alliance, or union,
that the British. Empire and the United States mean, in all
sincerity and good faith, when they establish co-operation, to
work for civilisation and peace; to move harmoniously and
sympathetically together for the accomplishment of this great
object—namely, the benefit of mankind. This, then, is the
central, true, deep, absorbing purpose of their alliance, an
interfusion of ideas, principles, sympathies and thoughts of the
people of both countries; acting, working together, and
co-operating to accomplish a common purpose, mission, and end.
We must mingle together in thought, and in sentiment; we must be
allies in the noblest sense of the word; not friends merely in
aggressive and selfish enterprises, but locked together in a
common thought and common purpose to achieve the {68} great and
glorious object of civilisation. And let this purpose be
broadly, clearly, and comprehensively stated, in some
declaration, in some writing, perpetuating the compact of
union—let us write a second Magna Charta, or a second
Declaration of Independence; commemorate our joint purpose in
some imperishable instrument, upon which may be written
declarations so clear and convincing that the world can never
mistake our purposes or misconstrue our motives.
[1] Second Discours en Sorbonne in Œuvres de Turgot, vol. ii.,
p. 52. Quoted in Buckle's History of Civilisation in England,
vol. i, p. 597.
[2] See article of Professor Dicey, The Contemporary Review
Advertiser, April, 1897, p. 212, recommending the establishment
of a common citizenship.
[3] The Chairman of this League was the Rt. Hon. Jas. Bryce,
M.P.; the Hon. Treasurer, Duke of Sutherland; the Hon.
Secretaries, T. Lee Roberts, Esq., R. C. Maxwell, Esq. LL.D.,
Sir Fred. ***, Bart.
[4] Vol. ii., History of Civilisation, etc., p. 1, note.
[5] Spirit of Laws, vol. ii., p. 6.
[6] From speech delivered on the 22nd of December, 1843, at New
England Society of New York, on the Landing of Pilgrims at
Plymouth, Webster's Works, vol. ii., p. 214.
{69}
CHAPTER III
THE HISTORICAL FACTS TRACED WHICH HAVE BEEN GRADUALLY LEADING TO
INTERFUSION BETWEEN THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE
ARE we the chosen race of Israel? Are we the peoples of the
earth, elected to lead the van of civilisation and peace?
Let our competency and integrity of purpose be judged by our
present lives, by our civilisation and government, and by our
past history. When we discuss the ability, competency, and
fitness of an individual for a public or private trust, we begin
by examining into his character, his mental and intellectual
acquirements, his business capacity; his experience, his past
life and conduct. We gauge and weigh every element of his moral
and intellectual nature, and our judgment is formed by the
results, good or bad, which flow from the examination.
Now, a state or government has a character precisely like an
individual. To analyse it, understand and appreciate it, we must
search the records of history; we must examine and weigh {70}
every important epoch of its national life to determine its
fitness, its trustworthiness, and its ability to be charged with
the great mission of civilisation and peace. We must sum up its
influence upon its own people, as well as consider the effect of
its national life and character upon other nations.
Before I proceed, then, to examine into the motives and reasons
which operate on the English and American nations to justify a
union, it is well to inquire into their national character. In
the light of history, how do the Anglo-Saxon people stand?
Guided by such, how should the outside world estimate us? Is the
compact we are contemplating a false or unholy one? Is it for
the present and future interest of the English-speaking people
to make it? Will this union militate against the interests of
the other nations of the world?
I do not propose to attempt to recall the history of
England—not even in the briefest form. I will simply bring to
notice certain salient epochs, which I will use as monuments to
mark the progress of the Anglo-Saxon race, as it journeyed from
its primitive, formative condition to a state of enlightenment.
I do not stop to dwell upon intermediate history, or attempt to
explain, palliate, or justify acts which of themselves may seem
to deviate from the general character of the people. Such acts,
indeed, were part of the conditions of their growth. I take my
readers to a high vantage-ground, and point out to them the long
pilgrimage of the nation from its untutored infancy to the
shrine of its full manhood. And I shall hereafter {71} consider
the subtle, all-pervading influences which their institutions,
laws, language, and literature have had upon the formation of
national and individual character.
I.—THE DIFFERENT EPOCHS WHICH LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND
EXPANSION OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING RACE
(a) The Introduction of Christianity into England
The English race began its outward and more apparent national
life as a band of marauders, rovers, and pirates, by chasing, in
a large measure, the original Celtic inhabitants of Britain from
their soil, and taking possession of it. The exact motives which
induced them to make these excursions to that island, or the
circumstances which surrounded them, are lost in the darkness of
the past. Probably they were prompted by mere rapacity and the
gratification of the spirit of enterprise. The tribes which are
now distinctly marked, as the Engle, Saxon, and Jute, belonged
to the same Low German branch of the Teutonic family, and were,
as it is said by the historians, at the moment when history
discovers them, being drawn together by the ties of a common
blood, common speech, common social and political institutions.
There is perhaps no ground for believing that these three tribes
looked on themselves as one people, or that they adopted the
name of Englishmen when they first settled in England, but each
of them was destined to share in the conquest of that island,
and it was from the {72} union of all of them, when its
conquest was complete, that the English people has sprung.[1]
The real national life of the people, however, commenced in the
sixth century, when Gregory (597) sent the Roman abbot
Augustine, at the head of a band of monks, to preach the Gospel
to them; and, as among the Greeks, the religious tie thus
created, became the strongest tie.
The flood of new thoughts and new purposes which Christ had
opened to the Eastern world began, by this time, to permeate
Europe. The distinctive features of Christ's precepts and life,
considering Him as a pure teacher alone, were that He instructed
men how to make the best use of their mental, physical, and
spiritual faculties. Consequently, as individual character is
the real basis of human society, Christianity became a necessary
part of government. At first, it was a plant of slow growth in
English soil, but the seed, once sown, took firm hold, and
to-day, in England, North America, and in the colonies of the
British Empire, Christianity, avowedly or essentially, is
strongly and healthfully entwined in all its constitutions and
governments,—a strong principle of cohesion, yet yielding to
the people an unrestrained freedom of religious opinion and
worship of the most unqualified character.
Of course, I do not overlook the immense benefits of
Christianity common to all the nations among which it was
introduced; it made the great distinction between ancient and
modern civilization—between {73} ancient and modern life. But,
in England, it was so far peculiar, that its ready and peaceful
acceptance, and the purposes of political homogeneity to which
it was turned, indicate a distinct national characteristic. All
the subsequent religious history of the country, even after
diversities arose, bears evidence of the same general truth. In
the contests through which society sought its amelioration, we
can discover always that "intimate connection between personal
liberty and the rights of conscience and the development of
public liberty so peculiar to the English race."[2]
I take the introduction of Christianity into England to be the
first great step in her natural and national progress—the
first span in the bridge which led from barbarity to
civilisation. Its influence upon the people can be profitably
studied in the typical Englishman, King Alfred.[3]
Of Liberty, the poet Shelley sings with equal truth and beauty:
"And then the shadow of thy coming fell
On Saxon Alfred's olive-cinctured brow."
We have recently celebrated the millennium of this illustrious
ruler. It should be made an occasion for the advancement of the
purposes I am {74} here opening. These purposes would have been
Alfred's.
(b) The Consolidation of the Different Kingdoms of England into
One
Although from the time of the landing of the Jutes, Saxons, and
Engles (449), their history is jejune and scanty, and the
occurrences of four centuries have been condensed by an
accomplished historian[4] into a few pages of history, yet
sufficient appears to show that the several governments
established by them in England were engaged in many bloody and
bitter intestine contests, and that the consolidation of the
people was first effected by Egbert (about 827). This union
lasted only five years, and we are told that it was brought
about, "for the moment, by the sword of Egbert." It was a union
of sheer force, which broke down at the first blow of the sea
robbers—the Northmen—who, about this time, invaded England.
But the very chance which destroyed the new England was destined
to bring it back again, and to breathe into it a life which made
its union real. "The peoples who had so long looked on each
other as enemies found themselves confronted by a common foe.
They were thrown together by a common danger, and the need of a
common defence. Their common faith grew into a national bond, as
religion struggled, hand in hand, with England itself; against
the heathen of the North."[5] They recognised a common king, as
a common struggle {75} changed Alfred and his sons from mere
leaders of West Saxons into leaders of all Englishmen in their
fight with the stranger, and when the work which Alfred set his
house to do was done; when the yoke of the Northmen was lifted
from the last of his conquests, Engle, Saxon, Northumbrian, and
Mercian, spent with the battle for a common freedom and a common
country, knew themselves, in the hour of their deliverance, as
an English people.[6]
The work of Alfred was to save the Saxon name and
existence—that he accomplished. His conquest, on the other
hand, was never complete. His wars ended in compromise, the
Danes retaining large settlements in the North and East of
England. Subsequently, their invasions were renewed. In Canute's
reign, they were the prevailing people. In all these
life-and-death struggles, there is nothing that detracts. The
Danes should be considered as a cognate people, alternating with
the Saxons, and finally blending with them; quite as often
defenders of the soil as invaders, and contributing largely to
the formation of the national character. In the struggle against
the Norman king, they were the last to succumb.
The union which each several tribe within the nation had in turn
failed to bring about was realised from the pressure of the
Northmen. It seems that at the close of the eighth century, the
drift of the English people towards national unity was utterly
arrested. The work of Northumbria had {76} been foiled by the
resistance of Mercia; the effort of Mercia had broken down
before the resistance of Wessex; and a threefold division had
stamped itself upon the land. So completely was the balance of
power between the three realms which parted it, that no
subjection of one to the other seemed likely to fuse the English
tribes into an English people; yet the consolidation of the
several kingdoms of England into one was eventually reached.[7]
It was the second step in its national progress.
What brought it about? Mark this well. The instinct of
self-preservation, of which the ambition, more or less
enlightened, of the several petty kings, was the instrument; the
external force in the ravages of the Northmen; the marriages and
alliances between the tribes; in fine, all of the same causes
which to-day are operating with greater force towards the
unification of the English-speaking peoples.
Compare England in this connection with the Grecian cities. The
unhappy destiny of the latter was complete before they realised
the benefit of consolidation, and when it was at last advocated,
and in some small degree adopted, it was too late. We read of
the Ætolian League and the Achaian League, but only as studies
to the political thinker of an idea to which there was always
wanting the power of fulfilment. Where lies the difference? Not
in intellect, surely, for no race has ever surpassed the Greek
in intellect. In what then? Simply, as I understand, in
character—in that especial endowment by which the Anglo-Saxon
{77} race so moulds itself, in its civic and social relations,
as to attain the highest purposes of political wisdom,
moderation, the subordination of self, the rejection of false or
impossible ideals, together with a kind of innate perception of
the value of time and occasion, in combination with persistency,
stability, and courage—these are the qualities which have made
its institutions at once models for the rest of the world, and
the subjects of its envy. The fatal disease of small political
entities ran through all the Grecian states, and they were
doomed. Consolidation, with the Greeks, was never more than a
faintly formed idea; with the English, like all other political
conceptions, it soon became a fact.
(c) The Influence of the Roman Law upon England's Progress
A civilising influence of the highest importance was the
absorption of the Roman law into their legal, ecclesiastical,
and political systems. It is an epoch in the progress of the
English, which, although impossible to say at what precise
period its influence was the greatest upon their people, I call
the third span in the bridge from an immature to a civilised
state.
It is certain that the Romans had establishments in England from
the time of Claudius (A.D. 43) until the year A.D. 448. During
the greater part of these four centuries they governed it as a
Roman province in the enjoyment of peace and the cultivation of
arts. The Roman laws were {78} administered as the laws of that
country, and at one time under the prefecture of their
distinguished ornament, Papinian.[8]
To estimate its influence upon the progress and development of
England, one must be prepared to accept the now generally
recognised opinion, that the Roman Law permeated every branch of
jurisprudence—property, procedure, criminal law—all. It was
ubiquitous, and even the feudal system, whose origin was
attributed, by most of the common-law writers, to the time of
William the Conqueror, is shown to have existed long anterior to
that reign; and was, probably, the creation of the Romans.
The jurisprudence of Rome was, and has ever been, an unfailing
fountain, whence the English people have drawn copious draughts
of wisdom and knowledge.
I do not mean by these observations to detract from the common
law—crude as it may have been as a science—for, in all that
relates to the principles and protection of civil liberty, it
was infinitely in advance of the Roman Law.
As a political system, the Roman Law was framed to be the
instrument of the despotism, under which it was perfected. As in
everything else, the English Law reflected the political genius
of the people. They extracted and preserved the good, and
rejected the evils, of the Roman system, the absorption of which
exhibits keen power of assimilation.
{79}
(d) The Great Charters; The Petition of Right; The Habeas
Corpus Act, Passed under Charles, The Bill of Rights in 1688,
and The Act of Settlement
The Great Charter of King John contained very few new grants,
but, as Sir Edward Coke observes, was mainly declaratory of the
fundamental laws of England.
But from his reign (1199) until the end of the reign of William
III. (1700), a period of almost exactly five hundred years, the
English nation was engaged in enlarging, deepening, and
strengthening the forms of a constitutional monarchy. Thus, the
Great Charter was confirmed in Parliament by Henry III., the son
of John. In the next reign of Edward I., by statute called
confirmatio cartarum, the Great Charter was directed to be
allowed as the common law. And by a multitude of statutes
between the last-named reign and that of Henry IV., its
principles were again declared and corroborated. Hume enumerates
these statutes as being thirty in all.
Then, after a long interval, and much backward and forward
movement, thrillingly interesting to the student, came the
parliamentary declaration of the liberties of the people,
assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign, and
celebrated as the Petition of Right. Subsequently, the Habeas
Corpus Act was passed in the reign of Charles II. To the above
succeeded the Bill of Rights, delivered by the Lords and Commons
to the Prince and Princess of Orange in 1688. Lastly, the {80}
liberties of the people were again asserted at the commencement
of the eighteenth century in the Act of Settlement, whereby some
new provisions were added for the better securing of religion,
laws, and liberties, which the Statute declares to be "the
birthright of the people of England," according to the ancient
doctrine of the common law.[9]
I take this great struggle for laws and liberty as marking
another distinct and remarkable epoch in the history of
England—the fourth span in the bridge of her growth and
development.
I am travelling rapidly through the ages of English history; but
not going so fast as not to be able to see that the nation and
her people are constantly progressing.
(e) The Union with Scotland
The fifth great epoch in the History of England, is the union
with Scotland; by which the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, on
the 1st day of May, 1707, became united as one under the name of
Great Britain. The Act which created this union did not
constitute between the two nations a federal alliance, but an
"incorporated union," the effect of which was that the two
contracting states, in their dual condition relatively to each
other were totally annihilated, and they became, thereafter, one
political entity, without any power of revival.
It is not essential to trace the history, anterior and
subsequent, which bears upon this great event; {81} yet we may
profitably reflect, that, arising out of centuries of hostility
and mutual injury, here also were the most inveterate prejudices
to be overcome, upon the one hand; on the other, partial
similarity of race, language, and institutions, and, in the view
of statesmen, the most enormous advantages. Under wise and
skilful management, the latter were at last made to prevail. It
is, however, notorious, such was the perverse opposition,
particularly in Scotland, the nation most to be benefited, that
notwithstanding the preparation for the event by a long train of
antecedent causes, had the measure been referred to a
plebiscitum, it could not have been carried. Can we now do other
than smile at such wilful blindness, such well-intentioned
folly? It is a most interesting page in history, and in the
present connection it carries with it the force of an authority.
(f) Discovery of America
I now turn to another epoch closely connected with the progress
of the English-American people.
In the fifteen centuries which followed the birth of Christ,
many important and profoundly serious historical events are
chronicled, but the sublimest fact of them all, after the
introduction of Christianity, is the discovery of America. The
intelligence, ambition, courage, influence, and progress of the
English race are nowhere more strongly illustrated than in the
events which follow this portentous event: it constitutes the
sixth great epoch in the history of the English-speaking
people. {82} Originally controlled by the Spanish and French,
this great North American Continent, little by little, but by
sure and regular steps, at length came completely under the
domination of the Anglo-Saxon race. I do not dwell upon this
epoch as a mere spectacle of military and material conquest. I
point to the great results which have flowed from it. Every acre
of ground they acquired, either by conquest or purchase, they
have retained, planting in its soil deep and indestructibly the
seeds of their policy, religion, and government. No revolution,
no time, no partial infusion of other races, has been able to
eradicate the English-American principles from the ground in
which they were originally sown.
There is a marked and impressive similarity between the conquest
of Britain by the Engles, Saxons, and Jutes, subsequently
consolidated into England, and the conquest or absorption of the
North American Continent by the English-American people. The
original Britons, as such, have almost entirely disappeared. And
where are the aborigines of North America? A few bands of
Indians constitute the vestige of the race which peopled the
North American continent when the hand and power of the
Anglo-Saxon people were laid upon it. Pause and reflect upon
this conquest: how it was accomplished; the principles which
justified the invasion of the country, and the acquisition of
the territory of the Indians. It was not merely greed and
conquest that actuated the settlers. Granted that they were not
always above {83} the ordinary motives which actuate humanity,
still in the main, it was the spirit of discovery, the
inextinguishable thirst for enterprise, so marked a
characteristic of the race, which impelled them. And, as we so
well know, these qualities were often combined with the noblest
motives;—the desire of finding absolute freedom for their
religious opinions and worship, which the necessities of the
political situation at home denied them. Go back to the aim and
purpose of government for a justification of these acts,
preliminary to the introduction of order and civic government in
the midst of a savage and barbarous country. Behold the
introduction of English principles, laws, literature, into the
great North American continent. While with heartfelt sympathy we
deplore the sufferings and extinction of the earlier possessors
of the soil, do we not clearly see that it affords a conspicuous
instance of that Providence which shapes our ends, rough hew
them how we will?
(g) The Independence of the Colonies
The seventh great epoch in the progress of the
English-speaking people, conceiving them as a whole in their
growth and expansion, is the separation of the colonies from the
mother country and the establishment of the Republic of the
United States. It constitutes one of the most important links in
the chain of circumstances which makes up the history of this
people. It is perhaps the greatest expansion of a kindred race
that history {84} has ever recorded. It has been accompanied by
such a fecundity of population; such marvellous personal and
aggregate wealth; such phenomenal development of individual and
national prosperity; such wonders of science, art, mechanical
invention, and commercial greatness; such enormous discoveries
of mineral treasures; such superabundance of agricultural
resources, as to amaze the very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet
it is said by some persons, because of the revolution of 1776,
that this phenomenal offspring of England, whose similarity of
speech, laws, literature, customs, complexion, manners, in fine,
of everything vital, is so striking, should shrink from a closer
union with her maternal ancestor; that overtures to push farther
their onward march towards civilisation and peace should be
treated either with indifference or positive scorn and contempt!
And this revolution of 1776, which was in reality but a further
expansion and propagation of the English race, and the
principles of English liberty, laws, and government, we
Americans are advised by a certain class to look upon as a
barrier to closer ties between kindred people! This argument is
so unnatural, so unchristianlike, so contrary to the laws of
human affection; so opposed to our mutual interest and progress;
so antagonistic to the good of mankind; so utterly unfounded in
reason and history, that I doubt whether it does not fall by its
own inherent weakness.
The Revolutionary War, in its outward form, commenced as a
struggle for the right of representation, {85} and was
afterwards extended to a demand for absolute liberty and
independence. But, inherently, it really was the struggle of
natural laws in aid of future growth. Although the immediate
contest grew out of what was, in effect, an infraction of
political rights and liberties, beyond all this were these
natural causes operating to produce separation. The peculiar
situation of the colonies, the immensity of their possessions,
their remoteness from the mother country, the enormous
difficulties of intercommunication, produced such isolation in
space, notwithstanding much love of the "old home" and pride of
ancestry, that an eventual parting between the two countries was
simply inevitable.
The War of 1776 was a family quarrel, and bitter, as all family
quarrels are. It had been brewing for at least ten years before
open war was resorted to, and the history of those ten years,
when closely studied, shows that natural conditions were
accelerating and encouraging the formal demands which the
colonies were to make of the mother country. There is no reason
to believe that if the demands had been adjusted, the union of
the countries would have been long preserved.
The truth is, that the son had arrived at full, mature age. The
maternal mansion was too small for his energy and ambition, and
could not accommodate his growing demands and wants. He threw
off his allegiance to the mother country, and set up for himself
in a separate establishment. It is doubtless true that the
maternal rule, by being, in {86} some particulars, narrow,
rigid, and unjust, accelerated the eventual demand for that
broader national life which was opening in the domains of the
new world, and I do not mean to deny that the arguments used by
the colonists to justify their separation were not sound. Weaker
reasons than those advanced, however, would, as circumstances
were, have amply justified the steps they took to establish
their independence. The inherent necessities were present, and
reasons were easily found to warrant extreme measures. On this
side of the Atlantic, in our historical treatment of the
subject, we have confined ourselves in the main to the immediate
causes and events of the unhappy quarrel, and it is a singular
evidence of the candour and conciliatory spirit of the English,
that their writers have, in most instances, accepted our version
of them, and even enhanced upon them; nay, have even glorified
in them as affording another example of the keen-sighted love of
liberty inherent in the race.[10] Nothing is more complete than
the national self-abnegation (if the expression may be allowed)
with which the subject is treated by English authors. Might not
we Americans at this time of day, in a spirit of equal fairness,
find some apology for our then antagonist? As thus: that the
struggle was conceived and precipitated by a handful of
infatuated politicians and a narrow-minded King; that the
pretext turned upon a point {87} of pure legality, such as has
always been found to have a tyrannous influence over minds so
constituted—a point, however, to which none of our warmest
defenders were able to find a legal answer; that at every stage
of the question it was contested by an opposition in Parliament
composed of men of exalted talent and purity of purpose, whose
speeches and writings on the subject are among the most precious
gifts of political eloquence and wisdom, and who were willing to
sacrifice their own political existence in proof of the
sincerity of their advocacy of our cause; that a similar
powerful opposition existed in the country, where the name of
Pitt was still a charm to conjure by; that if we had been
content to wait for a brief time, that opposition must have come
into power, and, as in the case of similar reactionary movements
in England herself, the broader doctrine must then have
prevailed, and every vestige of tyranny, and every cause of
disagreement, been swept away. We might ask ourselves whether,
being human, we were altogether impeccable! England under the
government of Chatham had valiantly come to our aid, and, after
a vast expenditure of blood and treasure, secured this continent
for her sons; and the subject of the partial reimbursement, in
behalf of which she taxed us, was the staggering debt incurred
in our defence. There was a measure of truth in this, and narrow
and inexpedient as was the attempt at coercion, in the eyes of
statesmen, it was just one of those errors into which ordinary
mortals are most apt to fall. {88} The quarrel once begun had,
of course, the usual tendency to aggravate itself by intemperate
speech and action. As to antecedent conditions, let comparison
be made between English, and French, and Spanish methods of
colonial government. In them Mr. Burke, our most ardent and
enlightened advocate, could find nothing to condemn. He commends
the wisdom of the general system and "the wise neglect" of
previous administrations. No one who has read the speech on
"Conciliation," can ever forget the magnificent tribute to the
rising greatness of the colonies, and to that "Liberty" which we
possessed, and which made that greatness. Even the Navigation
Laws, ugly blemish as they were, were strictly in accordance
with the economic ideas of the time, and as such were introduced
and accepted. Compare them, again, in their practical operation,
with those of France and Spain. Mr. Burke deplores them, but "as
our one customer was a very rich man" he remarks that, until a
very recent period, they had been scarcely felt as a
disadvantage. That seems really to have been so. Franklin, in
that inimitable examination before the Committee of the House of
Commons, admits as much, and says further, that, in his opinion,
those laws would not of themselves justify the resistance of the
colonies. Upon the whole subject, in a conversation with Burke,
Franklin confessed his fear that the condition of the colonies,
in the new order of things, would be less happy and prosperous
than in the old. It was about this time that the doctrines of
Adam Smith were beginning {89} to take root, and it is certain
that in less than half a generation the whole restrictive
system, as applied to the colonies, would, notwithstanding the
selfish opposition of the mercantile classes, have vanished like
a dream. As to the kinds of government bestowed on the colonies,
they were mostly of their own choosing, and in advance of the
times. Mr. Lecky remarks of them that "it cannot with justice be
said that they were not good in themselves, and upon the whole,
not well administered." Locke, the friend of all liberal
government, gave his genius and virtue to the elaboration of one
of them. Penn's model of government was in advance of his times
and in the forefront of ours, and it is believed that the
Calverts sought to embody the ideal perfections of Sir Thomas
Moore's Utopia in the Constitution of Maryland.
The truth is, that but for the natural causes impelling to
separation, the whole contention might, and should, have been
treated as a domestic one, in which, by virtue of the underlying
principles of the British Constitution, all that was wisest and
best would have triumphed, and there would have arisen out of
it, for both countries, an edifice stronger and more beautiful
than any which had gone before it. It was not to be. What
remains to us now is the fervent wish that all that was evil in
the controversy may for ever perish from the memories of men,
and in aid of that wish, the consideration that, as we were the
victors, to the victors belongs magnanimity, especially when
the victory was over our own kith and kin.
{90}
And in this temper of mind we may reflect that the War of the
Revolution was to us, in certain vital aspects, unmistakably a
blessing—it brought Union and the Constitution. Every student
of our history knows how deeply seated were the diversities
between the States, and what slight causes might have inflamed
them into enduring antagonisms; how embarrassing such conditions
were to Washington and the statesmen of the period; how, as a
consequence, through what opposing forces the ideas afterwards
ripening into the Constitution made their way. The Union and the
Constitution, as we have them today, were, then, the direct
products of that struggle. Without its impelling influence, it
is more than doubtful whether they would have been realised at
all. I can recall no instance in history where such peculiar
results have been reached, and permanently maintained, where
opposing passions existed and have been left to their natural
operation. There has been some active countervailing
impulse—some determining motive. We had such a motive in that
war and reached the result, but even then only after "difficulty
and labour huge." More fortunate, or more virtuous than the
Grecian communities, after their heroic defence against Persia,
we found in our successful resistance the means of security
against internal dangers infinitely greater than any external
ones, and along with them the opportunities of our highest
achievements in the field of political wisdom.
In this capacity for turning to account a situation fraught with
immense danger, do we not recognize {91} that our ancestors
were in accord with their ancestors in similar situations? Do
we need to be again reminded of the history of Magna Charta,
of Representation and the House of Commons, of the Petition of
Right, and of the English Constitutional System dating from
1688?
One other thought in this connection. The war which broke out in
1754 between France and England, was, in relation to us, a war
essentially for the control of North America, and England
unfalteringly sustained the colonists in that struggle. If
France had been successful in that war, and had established her
supremacy in the North American Continent, what would have been
the fate of Americans? How long would have been deferred the
establishment, by them, of a separate republican government?
Would it ever have been established in its present form? The
narrow escape the colonists had from the domination of French
power can now be clearly seen by those who read the history of
that time. The French driven out, there was nothing to
counterbalance the drift towards independence.
I am sure that there are few, if any, Englishmen who, however
much they may deplore the animosities which have been evoked out
of that episode in our common history, would now wish to undo
the results of the American Revolution. France looks with
envious and covetous eyes upon her ancient provinces, Alsace and
Lorraine, wrenched from her by a foreign power, but England
regards with pride the development, accomplishments, and wealth
{92} of her offspring, and, with genuine regret for the past,
turns yearningly towards it.
In thus restoring the subject to its historical integrity, so
far from weakening, we strengthen our side of the question. Why
should we sacrifice any fraction of the truth when we have so
little need to do so? Nakedly, under the circumstances, and free
from all legal and metaphysical abstractions for or against, it
was plain that the claims of the English Parliament did,
practically, involve consequences that we might well regard as
fatal to liberty, and, constitutional remedies failing, as
justifying an appeal to arms. The conviction of our ancestors
that nothing less than this was at stake rightly superseded all
other considerations, and was as profound and sincere as similar
convictions for similar principles, recorded in the annals of
the race. The more clearly we obtain a view of the subject in
its simplicity, the less will we be disposed to conceal,
exaggerate, or distort its contemporary aspects, either of facts
or morals. "It was against the recital of an Act of Parliament,
rather than against any suffering under its enactments, that
they took up arms. They went to war against a preamble."[11]
And yet we are likely to be told that one of the barriers
against any present alliance between the two nations grows out
of this Revolutionary War. If that event constitutes no
impediment to England, why should it cause embarrassment to the
United States? England was defeated and the colonists {93}
established their government. Is this event, now shown to be a
natural step in the expansion and development of the
English-speaking people, to be used as an argument against their
further progress? If so, why? The English nation does not put
forth such a claim. Why should we Americans allow a spirit of
hatred or prejudice to grow out of our own triumphs? In a sense
England fought for union with us, and if the war of 1776
furnishes any ground against the present establishment of a
union of feeling and interest between ourselves and her, how
much more forcible would be the argument when applied to the
present and future relations of the North and South? The results
of that fratricidal struggle, by which the latter people sought
to separate from the Union, have been fully acquiesced in. The
animosities and prejudices which were engendered by it have
disappeared, and the relations of the people of the North and
South are solidified by new feelings of deep and sincere
friendship, union, interest, and patriotism. The results of that
struggle, unhappy, dreadful as it was, have proved to be of
profound moral and material benefit to the people of both
sections. The results of the Revolution of 1776 have been of
like great advantage to both England and the United States.
History is full of civil wars, of family quarrels among kindred
peoples, in which the result has been, not separation of the
parts of the community, but their better integration. Look at
England herself; all her internal dissensions grew out of the
same {94} principle, which, when established, left the people
more firmly united, and on a higher plane than before. Indeed,
as all national systems are based upon an association of
families, it would be impossible to form any political society
if past wars and animosities between them were not forgotten;
and the same principle applies to communities homogeneously
related, although technically separated. Look again at England
and Scotland before and after the union!
The motive and reason for the unification of the
English-speaking people is manifest, and certainly nothing is
more unsound, nothing is more vain, than to search in the
closets of history to find skeletons of past quarrels, battles,
hatreds, and conquests, to frighten them away from their true
duty and interests.
Examine the history of England before the time when the separate
kingdoms into which she was divided were consolidated, and what
do we find? Constant and bloody wars between them! And yet, the
instant a union was established, and these different people
became one, how quickly the old spirit of prejudice and hatred
was buried in the grave of the past, and how joyously the people
entered upon a new era of progress and national success! Assume
that King George and the English Ministry bitterly tried to
prevent our independence; take it for granted that England
compelled us to go to war with her in 1812; admit that a portion
of her people sympathised with (and gave substantial support to)
the South in the {95} Rebellion of 1861. What then? Does it
follow that these events, buried in the vaults of the past,
should be brought out as arguments against the accomplishment of
acts clearly for our present interest, conducive, if not
necessary, to our future security and peace? The individuals who
composed the British Empire when all the above facts transpired,
are no more, and the causes which then operated upon them have
also long since disappeared. A learned historian has said: "The
God of History does not visit the sins of the fathers upon the
children."[12] Shall men be less liberal—less forgiving? Why
should we then reject the proffered and sincere friendship of
our own kindred? Is it only among nations, and such nations,
that "no place is left for repentance, none for pardon"?
England to-day, in respect to the individuals who compose it, is
not the England of yesterday. She recognises the independence of
the United States as the work of her own offspring; that which
she once sought to prevent she now hails as a blessing. The past
is buried; a new era is ushered in; new light illumines our
purposes, motives, and acts. Through the instrumentality of a
closer and quicker communication, we have become better
acquainted, our mutual wants and necessities are better
understood, the relations of each nation to the other are more
clearly defined, and out of all these conditions we can plainly
foresee that we have a common purpose and destiny to
fulfil—which can only be {96} accomplished by a genuine fusion
of the whole people.
Let the words of a poet, which have become a household
possession of the English race, be applied in letter and spirit
to the situation.
"I doubt not through the ages one increasing purpose runs,
And the thoughts of men are widening with the process of
the Suns.[13]
These truths are happy "prologues to the swelling act of the
imperial theme." The sublimest is now before us. The unification
of the English-American people in the glorious mission of
civilisation and peace is the next great preordained step in
their national life. Diplomacy might have laboured in vain to
create it; but neither prejudice nor demagogism can now thwart
or prevent it. Who will stand forth to challenge or prohibit the
banns of such a national matrimony? Let him show cause in the
Court of Civilisation why the doctrines of religion, liberty,
humanity, and peace should not control the result.
II.—RÉSUMÉ OF THE FOREGOING
I pause a moment to look back upon the ground I have covered—to
sum up conclusions. I have endeavoured briefly to point out in
the preceding observations the great historical landmarks which
have been made by the English-speaking people in their march
towards the twentieth century; I have shown the seven spans
which make up the bridge from their infancy to manhood.
{97}
We find them starting life at first as rovers and pirates,
crude, unlettered, barbarous; great sailors; great soldiers;
indefatigable, full of courage, adventure, and hope. They
established separate governments in England, the Jutes here, the
Angles there, and the Saxons everywhere. They absorbed into
their own free system of common law all the abstract principles
and the forms of procedure of the Roman law, which system had
had a growth of several centuries in England before the Romans
evacuated the island. We behold these tribes adopting
Christianity. Then comes union between the kingdoms, with all
the benefits which the consolidation of discordant and warring
states produces; the growth of commercial power; the
encouragement and development of their internal interests; the
entry of the people into enlightened national life; the creation
of England itself. Then follow centuries in which the nation at
times seemed to go backwards, at other times to stand still, or,
again, at others, to leap forward, with, on the whole, a steady
social advance, until the consummation of the union between
England and Scotland, so long retarded. From that period we
behold the people making steady and sure progress in their
national life. But long before this last-named event, England
had started in the great work of colonisation, in spreading her
people over the earth, with the consequent advancement of her
commercial interests, and the dissemination of her laws,
institutions, language, habits of religious thought, and
manners. America was discovered, and she soon {98} claimed and
held a commanding position on the American Continent, from which
she and her children were never to be dislodged. Then followed
the Revolutionary War, and the subsequent establishment of the
American Republic—that marvellous political progeny of England.
A separate government was created, with English laws,
institutions, language, literature—everything.
What is more instructive than the review of the progress of this
great race of which I have sketched the outlines, but of which,
as I have said, the details are innumerable? Are the
Anglo-Saxons to be trusted? Are they worthy of belief when they
assert that their purpose in fusion is to secure the
establishment of civilisation, and the maintenance of all the
best interests of mankind? Are they the proper custodians of
liberty and happiness, of "peace and good will"? Do not judge
them by any single, isolated fact in their history, but,
adapting your views to a philosophical consideration of the
subject as a whole, ask yourself, upon your moral
responsibility, what other or better guarantee for the
attainment of the ends proposed is afforded you than the history
of their race.
[1] Green's History of the English People, vol. i., pp. 7-8.
[2] See Article on "William Penn," by Theodore McFadden, in the
Magazine of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, for December,
1883.
[3] "England felt the full heat of the Christianity which
permeated Europe and drew, like the chemistry of fire, a firm
line between barbarism and culture. The power of the religious
sentiment put an end to human sacrifices, checked appetite,
inspired the crusades, inspired resistance to tyrants, inspired
self-respect, founded liberty, created the religious
architecture, inspired the English Bible."—Emerson's English
Traits, p. 164.
[4] Green's History of the English People, vol. i., p. 89.
[5] Ibid., p. 90.
[6] Green's History of the English People, vol. i., p. 90.
[7] Green's History of the English People, vol. i., p. 90.
[8] Reeves, History of the English Law, Finlason, vol. i., p.
161.
[9] Blackstone's Com., vol. i., p. 128 et seq.
[10] A recent instance is Sir George Otto Trevelyan's American
Revolution. Still later, however, is the work of Edmund Smith,
England and America after Independence, a strong and bold
defence of English policy after the separation.
[11] See Mr. Webster's speech on the Presidential Protest,
Works, vol. iv., p. 109.
[12] Mommsen.
[13] Tennyson—Locksley Hall.
{99}
CHAPTER IV
THE INHERENT NATURAL REASONS OR SYMPATHETIC CAUSES WHICH SUSTAIN
A UNION, AND WHICH SUPPORT THE HISTORICAL GROWTH AND TENDENCY TO
THE SAME END EXAMINED
I RECUR again to the resolution of the Anglo-American League:
"Considering that the people of the British Empire and of the
United States of America are closely allied in blood, inherit
the same literature and laws, hold the same principles of
self-government, recognise the same ideals of freedom and
humanity in the guidance of their national policy, and are drawn
together by strong common interests in many parts of the world,
this meeting is of the opinion that every effort should be made
in the interest of civilisation and peace to secure the most
cordial and constant co-operation between the two nations."
An inquiry into the practicability of forming a more perfect
union between the English-speaking people involves the
consideration, first, of their internal relations; and,
second, their external relations to the other nations of the
world.
What are the motives, influences, and causes which operate to
induce the English-speaking {100} nations and colonies to form a
closer union than that which now exists between them?
Of what real advantage is interfusion-brotherhood—union?
I shall endeavour to take up the subjects in their natural
order:
I.—UNION NATURAL AS TO TIME AND PEOPLE
In the first place, then, the union is a natural one, both as
to the time of its taking effect, and as to the people embraced
in it.
In respect to the time: the question of a union has not been
forced upon the race or dragged into public light at an unseemly
period by the artificial influences of diplomacy or official
negotiation. It has come before the people in a perfectly
natural way—unexpectedly, and unaccompanied by any strained or
superficial influence. It is the inevitable result of primary
and natural causes, which have been ripening and developing,
noiselessly and slowly, to this end. In a word, it is an
evolution.
Passing from the question of time, the union of the Anglo-Saxon
people is a natural one. It is an alliance of nations of one
"clime, complexion, and degree,
Whereto we see in all things nature tends."
It is not a union between nations speaking different languages,
possessing different characteristics, laws, sympathies, or
religious, moral, or political institutions. It is not a union
between the English and {101} Chinese, or the American and
Japanese. It is not discordant, grating upon the senses or
feelings—unnatural. Nor is it an alliance for temporary
purposes and gains, or for purely selfish motives or interests,
or for offence or defence. Neither, on the other hand, is it a
union of mere sentiment, a dangerous quality except when under
the control of reason both in nations and individuals. It is a
union which has become necessary in order to fulfil the destiny
of the race—it is as natural as marriage between man and woman.
It consummates the purposes of the creation of the race.
II.—OF THE SAME NATIONAL FAMILY
What are the different elements which constitute, or make up a
natural alliance?
We belong to the same national family.
It is true that we do not live in the same land, but are more or
less scattered over the world.
It is also true that we do not exist under the same form of
political government. We are, nevertheless, one family,
descended from the same stock, and attached to each other by the
inseparable chain of political, religious, and moral sympathies.
We are inspired by the same conceptions of truth, justice, and
right. We are living separately, as families live apart who are
too great, or too numerous, to exist under the same roof; or who
have separated to extend or enlarge their wealth, influence, and
power; and we have scattered ourselves over the face of the
globe, faithfully carrying {102} with us all the original ideas
and sentiments which we imbibed from the mother ***.
I give first place to this element of family nationality when
inquiring into the natural conditions which impel a union
between the English-speaking people. England is the mother
country; the United States, Canada, Australia, and the other
colonies are her legitimate offspring. We are direct descendants
of England. We, citizens of the United States, are her greatest
and most direct offspring. When we separated from her, we took
her language, her laws, her morals, her religion, her
literature, with us; in fact, we left nothing of value behind
us. In a word, we are so strongly marked with her lineaments,
that it is impossible, if we wished, to deny her maternity. No
matter whom our remote ancestors were previous thereto, it is
certain that since the time of Alfred, we have a direct and
uncontrovertible lineage. Our national pedigree from that epoch
can be clearly, even vividly traced. But however interesting in
other connections, I see no good or profit to be derived from
entering into ethnological or philological discussions as to who
constituted our direct or remote ancestors, or to spend time in
tracing the origin and course of our language. Neither is it
worth while to advert to the contention, that there can be no
English-American alliance while we have among us so large an
infusion of a nondescript foreign element. The same reasoning
could have been equally applied to the union between England and
Scotland. Such blending gives force to {103} the contention in
favour of the mission of the dominant stock race, abroad and at
home. The reasons for an alliance do not rest upon a correct or
technical decision of these points. It is an undeniable fact,
that previous to the reign of William the Conqueror, and for a
limited time thereafter, the English nation was composed of
heterogeneous elements, and that a great admixture of foreign
blood was injected into the veins of her people. In truth, the
vigour, character, and virtue of the English nation is largely
attributable to the influences which this admixture of outside
and alien blood has had upon it. To-day she opens her doors to
foreign immigration with fewer restrictions than we do. The
nations which have erected a barrier against the outside world,
refusing to mix or mingle with strangers and foreigners, have
sunk into final decay or ruin. Admixture of blood, within due
limits, is an indispensable element to a strong, lasting,
vigorous, national life. It is, besides, one of the duties
imposed upon the highest civilisation, and necessary to its
diffusion.
"The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture,
the pure blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune
and hastened the ruin of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius
of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition and deemed it more prudent
as well as honourable to adopt virtue and merit for her own,
wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies
or barbarians."[1]
In respect to the United States of America, it has been well and
often said that her population is {104} largely made up of
foreign elements, and that she is in this respect the most
heterogeneous of all nations. The remarkable fact, however, is
that this foreign element disappears, almost like magic, in the
*** of American nationality, and assimilates itself almost
immediately with the laws, habits, manners, and conditions of
the country. The foreigners who have immigrated to this country,
and embraced, through the naturalisation laws, American
citizenship, have come here, for the most part, to make this
their permanent abode. In assuming this citizenship, their
foreign prejudices, thoughts, and habits have become absorbed in
their new political life and duties. As rain, falling upon banks
of sand, leaves no trace of its existence, so these foreigners,
swallowed up in the immense and busy life of this country, soon
pass unnoticed and undistinguished, into the walks of American
citizenship. This great faculty of absorbing and assimilating
the heterogeneous and foreign admixture of blood, contributes to
the wonderful success of the American Republic. All that remains
of the foreigner's country, after he becomes naturalised, is a
memory of the past. In one or another harmless form, through
social, fraternal, musical, and other societies, he keeps alive
the sentiments of his childhood and youth, and reproduces the
images of old homes and old friendships. But his new political
and social convictions are as fixed and immovable as rocks.
The loyalty of these new citizens to existing republican
institutions is fervid and genuine, and {105} once here, there
is no effort on their part to introduce or propagate the
political habits of thought, or the institutions, of their
mother country. They are not only content with the liberty and
political conditions which prevail; but they become the most
ardent supporters and advocates of our Democracy. In comparison
to the number of immigrants who reach our shores, few of them,
as I have said, ever permanently return to their own countries.
But notwithstanding the great mass of foreigners who help to
make up our population, it is very evident that the
predominating element of the country traces its ancestry back to
the British Isles; that there is more of her blood in the veins
of Americans than that of all other nations combined.
Illustrations of the strength of this remark can be found in all
the walks of the political, civic, military, naval, religious,
scientific, commercial, and literary life, of the people. What
is it but another triumph of the race and its civilisation? It
is not without interest to trace the ancestry of our Presidents,
and of some of our prominent statesmen, military and naval
officers, financiers, merchants, writers, and scholars. The
latter classes I have picked out at haphazard—without invidious
distinction.
PRESIDENTS
1. GEORGE WASHINGTON…..English.
2. JOHN ADAMS…………English.
3. THOMAS JEFFERSON……English.
4. JAMES MADISON………English.
5. JAMES MONROE……….Scotch.
6. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS…..English.
{106}
7. ANDREW JACKSON……..Irish, of probably Scotch descent.
8. MARTIN VAN BUREN……Dutch.
9. W. H. HARRISON……..English.
10. JOHN TYLER………..English.
11. JAMES K. POLK……..Irish.
12. ZACHARY TAYLOR…….English.
13. MILLARD FILLMORE…..English.
14. FRANKLIN PIERCE……English.
15. JAMES BUCHANAN…….Scotch-Irish.
16. ABRAHAM LINCOLN……English, probably.
17. ANDREW JOHNSON…….English, probably.
18. U. S. GRANT……….Scotch.
19. JAMES A. GARFIELD….English.
20. CHESTER A. ARTHUR….English.
21. RUTHERFORD B. HAYES..Scotch.
22. GROVER CLEVELAND…..English.
23. BENJAMIN HARRISON….English.
24. WILLIAM McKINLEY…..Scotch-Irish.
25. THEODORE ROOSEVELT…Dutch-Irish-Scotch.
STATESMEN
1. DANIEL WEBSTER……..English.
2. HENRY CLAY…………English.
3. JOHN C. CALHOUN…….Scotch-Irish
4. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN…..English.
5. SAMUEL ADAMS……….English.
6. PATRICK HENRY………Father-Scotch descent. Mother- English
descent.
7. JOHN RANDOLPH………English (some accounts say Scotch).
8. SALMON P. CHASE…….English.
9. WILLIAM H. SEWARD…..Father—Welsh descent. Mother—Irish
descent.
10. CHARLES SUMNER…….English.
11. JEFFERSON DAVIS……Father—Welsh descent.
Mother—Scotch-Irish descent.
{107}
JURISTS
1. JOHN MARSHALL………Welsh.
2. JOHN JAY…………..Father—French descent.
3. OLIVER ELLSWORTH……English.
4. JAMES KENT…………English.
5. JOSEPH STORY……….English.
6. ROGER BROOKE TANEY….English.
7. WILLIAM M. EVARTS…..English.
8. RUFUS CHOATE……….English.
9. SAMUEL J. TILDEN……English.
SOLDIERS
I. NATHANAEL GREENE……English.
2. WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN..English.
3. WINFIELD SCOTT……..Scotch.
4. PHILIP H. SHERIDAN….Personal memoirs (autobiography) says
parents were born and reared in Ireland.
5. ROBERT EDWARD LEE…..English.
6. THOMAS JONATHAN JACKSON..Scotch-Irish. (STONEWALL)
7. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON….Scotch.
8. GEORGE HENRY THOMAS…Father—Welsh descent. Mother—French
Huguenot descent.
9. NELSON A. MILES…….Father—Welsh descent.
SAILORS
1. EDWARD PREBLE………English.
2. OLIVER H. PERRY…….English.
3. ANDREW HULL FOOTE…..English.
4. WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE….English.
5. DAVID GLASCOE FARRAGUT..Father—Spanish descent.
Mother—Scotch descent.
6. STEPHEN H. DECATUR….French descent.
7. RAPHAEL SEMMES……..French descent.
8. GEORGE DEWEY……….English descent.
{108}
FINANCIERS
1. ROBERT MORRIS………English.
2. ALEXANDER HAMILTON….Scotch descent.
3. ALBERT GALLATIN…….He was descended from an ancient
patrician family of Switzerland.
4. J. PIERPONT MORGAN….Father—Welsh descent. Mother—English
descent.
WRITERS AND SCHOLARS
1. JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL..His stock was distinctly of English
origin.
2. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES..Dutch and Puritan ancestry.
3. EDGAR ALLAN POE……..From his father he inherited Italian,
French, and Irish blood. His mother, Elizabeth Arnold, was
purely English.
4. HENRY W. LONGFELLOW….English descent.
5. RALPH WALDO EMERSON….English descent.
6. JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER..He was of Quaker and Huguenot
descent.
7. WASHINGTON IRVING……Scotch descent.
8. NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE….English descent.
III.—THE SAME LANGUAGE
I now come to consider the third element which goes to make up
the natural character of the alliance.
We have the same language. The inhabitants of the United States
of America, and of Great Britain, not only speak the same
language, but it is their native tongue. How can we overrate
in this respect the enormous value of a common language—an
{109} influence which, according to the use made of it, may be
either healing and remedial, unifying and progressive—the
source of all that is most beneficial and delightful, or else
jarring, discordant, retroactive, and pernicious. Ought it ever
to be forgotten that to the mother country belongs the glory of
originating and forming this great language?
It is one thing to speak and understand a language; but it is
quite a different thing to have inherited it, to have been born
with it; or even to have acquired it, as a necessary concomitant
and auxiliary to citizenship. One may acquire a language as a
traveller, linguist, or as an accomplishment; or from the
temporary necessity of office, occupation, or livelihood; but
language acquired, for either of these latter purposes, no
matter how perfectly, is merely formal and incident to
education, and creates no sentiment of country, home,
patriotism, or national pride. An Englishman speaking French, or
a Frenchman speaking English, has no sympathy with the customs,
laws, manners, morals, legends, literature, or drama of the
foreign country beyond the acquired one of scholarship. The
range, influence, and effect of the native tongue, however, is
that of the air. We cannot see it or touch it. We cannot
transcribe, or limit, its scope or power. We only know that it
was born with us; that it is our constant, ever-present
companion. It is with us in our sleep, in our dreams. It is
omniscient, and omnipresent. It is a heritage that no time,
influence, or condition can take away {110} from us. He who
would describe the influence and importance of language upon
those who are born with it, must be able to encompass the air
which we breathe, and say what are its limits and effects upon
human life.
The intercommunication of ideas between people who use the same
native tongue is a source of pleasure and joy, of pain and
sorrow, of love and hatred. It brings to the surface from the
innermost depths of the soul, from the hidden recesses of the
mind, the sensations of home and country. It draws from the
perennial and inexhaustible fountains of memory, genius, and
inspiration the mysterious accumulations of thought harboured
there, and sends them floating through the world to distinguish
men from beasts. In some languages the same word expresses both
speech and reason, and therefore conveys the distinctive idea of
man.
The sands of the seashore, the drops of the ocean, are few when
compared to the mighty current of words which are poured into
the world by millions upon millions of human tongues. It is the
tie of a common language which indefinably and inexpressibly
knits together all those who have inherited it. "The tie of
language is perhaps the strongest and most desirable that can
unite mankind."[2] The English language is a synonym of English
thought, passion, pleasure, pain, suffering. It expresses all
our intimate and fundamental ideas of law, religion and
politics. It means home, {111} parents, relatives, and friends.
It conveys to the mind all the hopes, wishes, aspirations, and
emotions of the English-speaking races.
When an Englishman and an American meet, no matter how casually,
their common tongue furnishes, immediately, a means of
communication which makes them "Native to the manner born." A
few spoken words, a few lines of correspondence, open up, if
need be, the whole life of each nation: its politics, its forms
and principles of justice, its religion, its domestic interests
and feelings, its science, its drama, its literature, its past,
present, and future. It establishes a sympathy and bond in all
common things. If they discuss a question of municipal law, they
know without explanation the principles and proceedings
applicable to it. If literature, they immediately refer to some
common standard. Details are understood and employed without
comment or explanation. Their common sympathies, their common
methods of thought, their common judgments, are substantially
the same. They may differ in form of expression and thought, and
in other superficial outward methods, but ideas of the
principles of a free constitutional government, of justice,
right, truth, liberty, and religion, are cast in the same
uniform mould in English and American ***. If confronted
with one of another race, their language in these respects would
at once evince their common origin. Despite individual prejudice
and personal dislikes, there is a substantial groundwork of
sympathy between an American and an Englishman as to what is
fundamentally {112} right and wrong, and as to how the right
should be asserted and the wrong redressed and punished, even to
the minutest degree of assimilation or repugnancy. And this is
so, even where there may be a difference of opinion as to the
merits of the immediate subject of controversy.
An Englishman and a Frenchman, meeting for the first time,
although capable of expressing themselves in one or both
languages, have no common ideas or sympathy in questions of law,
religion, politics, history, or literature. Such questions, even
among cultivated people, are only treated of in the abstract.
One word, which would open a fountain of sympathy between
Englishmen and Americans when speaking to each other; would be a
dry well of thought to a Frenchman, German, or Russian,
involving long and intricate explanations, even where there was
more than average intelligence and knowledge on both sides. That
indefinable and untranslatable perception of English and
American manners, customs, and tastes—which, Mr. Burke says,
are stronger than laws—can never be conveyed or understood
except by the native English tongue, to a native Englishman or
American.
It is impossible to enhance the importance of this uniformity of
language, in holding the race together and in rendering the
genius of its most favoured members available for the
civilisation of all.
As Mr. Grote says of the Greeks,[3] "Except in {113} the rarest
cases, the divergences of dialect were not such as to prevent
every Greek from understanding and being understood by every
other Greek." Language, therefore, made in all its widely spread
settlements the bond and badge of the Greek race. Without it,
other instrumentalities of co-operation, such as religion, would
not have been available.
It is due to their common language that all the Greeks come to
us as one people; yet Homer was Scian; Anacreon, Teian; Pindar,
Bœotian; Sappho and Alcreus, Lesbian; Herodotus, Carian;
Aristotle, Stageirean. Language dissolved all differences
between them. Notwithstanding the invincible political obstacles
which kept them apart, by virtue of language, they all gloried
in the name of Hellas, and eagerly disputed who was best
entitled to that name, and who had best illustrated its
greatness. A stimulating and fruitful rivalry!
The same thought is elaborated in other relations by Professor
Freeman.[4]
"Primarily, I say, as a rule, but a rule subject to exceptions,
as a prima facie standard, subject to special reasons to the
contrary, we define the nation by language. We may at least
apply the test negatively. It would be unsafe to rule that all
speakers of the same language must have a common nationality;
but we may safely say that when there is not community of
language there is no common nationality in the highest sense. It
is true that without community of language there may be an
artificial nationality, a nationality which may be good for
political purposes, and which may engender a common national
feeling. Still this is not quite the same thing as that {114}
fuller national unity which is felt where there is community of
language. In fact, mankind instinctively takes language as the
badge of nationality."
Pursuing the thought and reverting to the Greeks, I am tempted
to take an example from Herodotus of what Athens could do in her
nobler moods. Secretly dreading her power of resistance after
Marathon and Salamis, but after all Attica had been overrun and
devastated, Mardonius sought to detach her from the alliance of
those communities which still remained faithful to the common
cause. Fearful that the bribes and flatteries of the Persian
might prevail, Sparta sent her ambassadors who met at the same
moment with those of Mardonius, and their respective interests
were openly debated in the presence of Athenians. After hearing
both, the Athenians replied, first to the Persians, or their
representative ally, Alexander of Macedon:
"We know as well as thou dost that the power of the Mede is many
times greater than our own; we did not need to have that cast in
our teeth. Nevertheless we cling so to freedom that we shall
offer what resistance we may. Seek not to persuade us into
making terms with the barbarians; say what thou wilt, thou wilt
never gain our assent. Return rather at once and tell Mardonius
that our answer to him is this: So long as the sun keeps his
present course we will never join alliance with Xerxes. Nay, we
shall oppose him unceasingly, trusting in the aid of those gods
and heroes whom he has lightly esteemed, whose houses and whose
images he has burnt with fire. And come not thou again to us
with words like these, nor, thinking to do us a service,
persuade us to unholy actions. Thou art the guest and friend of
our nation; we would not that thou shouldst receive hurt at our
hands."[5]
{115}
And then, turning to the Spartans, they went on as follows:
"That the Lacedemonians should fear lest we should make terms
with the barbarian was very natural; yet, knowing as you do the
mind of Athenians, you appear to entertain an unworthy dread,
for there is neither so much gold anywhere in the world, nor a
country so pre-eminent in beauty and fertility by receiving
which we should be willing to side with the Mede and enslave
Greece. For there are many and powerful considerations that
forbid us to do so, even if we were inclined. First and chief,
the images and dwellings of the gods, burnt and laid in ruins:
this we must needs avenge to the utmost of our power rather than
make terms with the man who has perpetrated such deeds.
Secondly, the Grecian race being of the same blood and the same
language and the temples of the gods and sacrifices in common,
and our customs being similar—for the Athenians to become
betrayers of these would not be well. Know, therefore, if you
did not know it before, that so long as one Athenian is left
alive, we will never make terms with Xerxes. Your forethought,
however, which you manifest towards us, we admire, in that you
offer to provide for us whose property is thus ruined, so as to
be willing to support our families, and you have fulfilled the
duties of benevolence; we, however, will continue in the state
we are without being burdensome to you. Now, since matters stand
as they do, send out an army with all possible expedition; for,
as we conjecture, the barbarian will in no long time be here
again to invade our territories as soon as he shall hear our
message that we will do none of the things he required of us.
Therefore, before he has reached Attica, it is fitting that we
go out to meet him in Bœotia."[6]
The passage and its application need no comment. It thrills our
blood to-day, as it must have done those who spoke, and those
who listened, two thousand four hundred years ago. Would {116}
that Greece could have always remained true to her grander
instincts and motives!
IV.—THE SAME LITERATURE
In all the articles which we may examine upon the subject of
alliance, the existence of a common literature is ranked as one
of its main moving causes. I have not found that any of the
advocates of Anglo-Saxon co-operation have elaborated this
thought. They have rested with a mere statement of the
proposition. Strongly self-evident as this seems, I am not
satisfied to pass it over without some elaboration. I want to be
certain that we all understand and appreciate the nature and
degree of the influence of literature upon this proposed union.
Why is literature an important, natural factor, in the
proposed alliance? As I take it, it is because we gather most of
our knowledge and mental training from the same intellectual
fountainhead. English literature tells us how the
English-American people think; it shows what their process and
basis of reasoning and feeling are, upon all subjects, small and
great. If we are the same in our ideas, we behold its reflection
in this vast mirror of thought and opinion; if we are divergent,
we know the reason; and as one of the most ordinary functions of
literature is to state, explain, examine, and discuss,
eventually we are brought to a closer basis of common thought.
Besides all this, our literature marks course of national
life—retrogressive or progressive. {117} It holds up in the
widest sense the "glass of fashion and the mould of form."
Certainly, if a proposition were made to establish an alliance
between France and the United States of America, or between
Germany or Russia and the United States, the literature of these
countries could not be appealed to, to establish a common tie or
natural bond of sympathy between them. The Americans, as a
people, know as little of French literature as the French,
German, or Russians know of English literature. The literature
of each of these countries is as a sealed book, except to those
who have the leisure and inclination for special studies.
Different causes and motives would therefore have to be sought
for, to support a proposition of union. In the case of the
Anglo-Saxon people, however, it is otherwise; they read the same
books, magazines, and papers; they feed on the same intellectual
food. Words perish as soon as they are spoken. Literature never
dies, but is transmitted from generation to generation without
end or limit. The literature of a country is the expression not
only of its actual knowledge, but also of its genius and natural
character; and this is diffused through all channels of
publication, by means of books, magazines, and papers. Whenever
this manifestation finds a lodgment in the minds of its readers,
it is again transmitted by language. Literature, therefore,
becomes a prolific source of instruction and education, and, as
we drink from the same fountain of knowledge and inspiration,
our tastes, habits, and modes of [118] thought necessarily
approximate to each other. An individual reads for pleasure or
instruction, and what he receives of either or both combined, he
again readily imparts by speech or pen to whomsoever he meets;
hence literature acts directly upon some, and indirectly upon
all. The Anglo-Saxon people, through the medium of literature,
are continuously en rapport with each other. Everything
published in the English language becomes common property to the
whole English-speaking world; giving rise, according to its
degree of merit, to the same impressions; calling into exercise
the same faculties and sensibilities. The influence of
literature may be considered in direct connection with language,
of which it is the growth, and which in its turn it amplifies,
strengthens, and embellishes. But let us consider the matter a
little more closely.
In point of quantity, the publications in the English language
are said to exceed those of all the other nations of the earth
combined. In point of scholarship, art in writing, eloquence,
spirit, research, and knowledge, English literature is certainly
second to none. It may be natural partiality arising from the
native use of the language and more intimate acquaintance with
the originals, but it is a conviction deeply rooted in the mind
of the English reader, even the most scholarly, that his own
literature is, upon the whole, the greatest that the ages have
yet produced.
In its composite form, it is a link in the chain, binding
together the present and the past. I do {119} not now refer to
the past of our own race, when we were all participating in its
formation, but to what is properly known as antiquity. With many
of the words and phrases, and much of the syntax and prosody of
the ancient tongues, we have also imbibed much of their
spirit—of what is properly designated the "classic." I am not
one of those who belittle the classic; far from wishing to see
it eliminated, I would wish to see it cultivated. With all the
native strength of the "English," there was ample room for the
infusion of the graces and proprieties of the Greek and
Latin.[7]
Out of the development of the languages so blended sprung
variety, harmony, style, and, as a consequence, taste in
composition. In every epoch of our literature, in each of its
manifestations, from Gower and Chaucer to Tennyson and
Longfellow, we find the presence of this classic attribute,
first dim and struggling, then actual and triumphant, forming,
moulding, beautifying, and perfecting. The benefits which our
civilisation has derived from this process are incalculable. It
would be a sorry day for us on both sides of the Atlantic when
the common standards depending on taste in writing should be
lost. Those of speech would soon follow, and the language would
become a confused mass of barbarisms. The effects upon its
character would soon be traced. I believe, from certain
indications, that it will rest with us in the frequent
fluctuations of changing style, to vindicate our {120} title of
depositories of the permanent models of the literature and
language, by becoming also its preservers—in other words, to
oppose a barrier to evident tendencies towards overgrowth,
obscurity, and corruption. If so it be, the influence will be
felt as a reflex one, extending backward to the shores where the
language originated, and so again illustrating the invisible and
indivisible tie that binds us together, "Old Ocean" to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Our original Saxon tongue was not conquered by the Greek and
Roman, as were those of the nations of the South of Europe; it
appropriated them—leading them, as it were, in a kind of
magnificent triumph. Out of the interfusion, such as it was,
came a dialect and afterwards a literature, wholly sui
generis. We find the same characteristic in the assimilation of
the Roman civil law by our own common law. Our legal system did
not become Latinised—but whatever was good, sound, and relevant
in the civil law became incorporated and was Anglicised. In
dwelling upon our literature for a moment, I shall not, as is
usually done, glorify particular names—Spenser, Shakespeare,
the dramatists, Milton, Bacon, ***, Jeremy Taylor, Burke, the
classicists so-called. All the long array of great thinkers,
eloquent preachers, exquisite poets, and novelists will occur at
once to everyone. Let me rather dwell, as more germane to our
present purpose, upon certain traits common to all,
notwithstanding the diversities of styles and epochs. I would
mention, then, as one such {121} trait, a certain solidity of
thought—a something derived from the actual experience of life
and close experimental contact with nature. This is visible at
all times, and impresses one as quite in keeping with that other
something in the character of the people (if the two can be at
all separated), which has led to the creation and preservation
of their political institutions. It is certainly a native
quality, being equally characteristic of the very loftiest and
most fervent productions of English genius, and of those which
have no other claim upon us than sober good sense. Carrying the
thought a little farther, these observations of man and nature
become a positive force in the formation of individual
character, and, of course, of society. It is this sure,
well-grounded, homelike quality which, among all the other
literatures of the world, peculiarly distinguishes the English,
united as it may be and has been in many instances, with the
utmost perfection of art. It is to detract from an almost
universal characteristic to cite instances, but what other
literature has productions like the Pilgrim's Progress,
Robinson Crusoe, or poetry in this respect like Cowper's
Task? What is Shakespeare but a revelation of familiar thought
and feeling sublimed by genius? What is Milton, classicist as he
is, in the garden scenes of Paradise, but the painter of an
English home? The very flowers of his Paradise seem made to
bloom there. Addison and all the essayists,—in what does their
charm consist, but in their communion with daily life and
thought? So, too, as to their legitimate successors, the great
{122} novelists. The new world they have given us—what is it
but an accurate representation of the men and women we have
known, and a delightful participation in all their experiences?
Truly we have a rich and ever-abiding inheritance in this
literature. The inheritance itself is a positive gift, but it is
more. It points out infallibly the direction our minds should
take in dealing with those from whom we have derived it. With
such a genuine emanation before us of the mental, moral,
political, and religious life of a people, shall we go amiss in
extending to them our sympathies and establishing a mutual
friendship? In this way we know them—know them as we can in no
other way—not through the obscuring haze of momentary passion,
and the disturbance of abnormal aberrations, but through a
medium deep as the life of nations and of universal binding
efficacy. If language and literature have made us one, by what
unhallowed process shall we be "put asunder"?
I have used the word "English" in reference to literature
following the common style; of course I include our own. In all
that is best, it shows the common origin. Franklin, the
Federalist; the great indigenous Webster, who knew so well "what
blood flowed in his veins";[8]
"I am happy to stand here to-day and to remember that, although
my ancestors, for several generations, lie buried beneath the
soil of the Western Continent, yet there has been a time when my
ancestors and your ancestors toiled in the same cities and
villages, cultivated adjacent fields, and worked together {123}
to build up that great structure of civil polity which has made
England what England is."
The refined and genial Irving—and all our later names are
classed together in thought;—a noble republic free from enmity
and faction, in which they march under one banner and shed a
single influence. An English boy recites The Song of Marion's
Men, with as much enthusiasm as an American. Longfellow is a
household name in England as with us; Emerson was received in
Oxford and Cambridge as a "new light" along with Newman and
Carlyle. The time is not far distant, if we will be true to
ourselves, when America will be classic ground to the
Englishman, as, long since, Irving declared, England was to
America. I have not been able to perceive that there lingers in
the English mind one trace of the old-time disparagement of
American books, things, and manners. Candid and just criticism
they may employ towards us, as to themselves; that right is
inalienable and it has its uses; but their praise is more
frequent than their censure, and being accompanied by
discernment, has more value. English criticism has sometimes
made a classic reputation for our authors—as in the case of Poe
and Hawthorne. Walt Whitman is more curiously and tolerantly
read there than among ourselves. As we have developed, the
disposition has grown to accord us a full appreciation. At no
time whatever, though half-serious, half-humorous badinage may
have existed, has there ever been a particle of envy.
{124}
I thus place before the English-American people some of the
influences of a common literature. Pursue the subject as we may,
through all its ramifications, the stronger becomes the
conviction of its power to unite us for good and noble
purposes.[9]
V.—THE SAME POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
In the formation of the Constitution of the United States the
theory and spirit, substance and form, of the political
institutions of England were most strikingly followed. Here is
another natural bond of sympathy, fellowship, and nationality,
of the strongest nature between these countries.
A brief review of the cardinal points in the political
development of the English-speaking people seems an essential
feature of this aspect of the question.
More than eight centuries elapsed between the reign of Alfred
the Great, and the "Bill of Rights," in the reign of William and
Mary (875 to 1688), In all this time, the English people were
steadily and constantly engaged in building and perfecting their
present system of government.
It was a fabric of slow and often unconscious growth, and many
times when it seemed to be on {125} the verge of completion, the
storms of rebellion, of kingly usurpations, of foreign wars,
swept fiercely through its walls and blew them to the ground.
These very storms were instruments in regular and organic
development; and, nothing discouraged or disheartened, the
people bravely set to work, and commenced again the task of
rebuilding and finishing the great governmental edifice, which
they were to leave to the world as an imperishable monument of
their courage, hardihood, love of freedom and justice, and which
should, in all time, prove a refuge and an asylum for the
oppressed and liberty-loving people of the world.
The foundations of this government were not completed in the
reign of Alfred—when the different kingdoms which prevailed in
England were fast approaching consolidation.
The germs of an executive power are faintly foreshadowed in the
personal influence of the reigning King, whose authority
vacillated as the King himself was strong or weak. But the war
with the Northmen raised Alfred and his sons from tribal leaders
to national kings, and the dying out of other royal stocks left
the house of Cerdic the one line of hereditary kingship.[10]
The seeds of parliamentary birth were steadily growing in the
form of a Witenagemote, in the "great meeting" of the Assembly
of the wise—which represented the whole English people, as the
wise moots of each kingdom represented the {126} separate
peoples of each, its powers being as supreme in the wider field
as theirs in the narrower, all developing from the people as
they were arranged in their local Assemblies or Hundreds.[11]
For to it belonged the higher justice, the power to impose
taxes, the making of laws, the conclusion of treaties, the
control of wars, the disposal of public lands, the appointment
of great officers of state, and, finally, it could elect or
depose a king.[12]
It is not within the limits or sphere of my purpose to go into
the details, but when Alfred died the fundamental principles of
a sound and substantial government existed, illustrated in an
executive, legislative, and judicial department clearly defined.
Besides this feature of his reign, a commercial activity began
to be developed, and literary tastes and education encouraged
and cultivated.
The free institutions of Alfred survived under the Norman
tyranny or conquest. No substantial change was made in law or
custom by William.[13]
The germs of the famous Magna Charta were laid in the reign of
Henry I., and almost one of the first acts of this monarch was
to grant a charter which was calculated to remedy many of the
grievous oppressions which had been committed during the reigns
of his father, William the Conqueror, and his brother, William
Rufus.
{127}
The example of Henry, in granting a charter favourable to the
liberties of the people, was followed by Stephen, who renewed
the grant, which was confirmed by Henry II. But the concessions
of these princes were one thing and their actions another. They
still continued to exercise the same unlimited authority.
The charter of John, Magna Charta, culminated the people's
expressions of their wrongs. That its provisions were not novel
or startling, that the people knew exactly what they wanted, is
strongly manifest from the asserted fact that this great and
famous constitution was finally discussed and agreed to in a
single day.[14]
I say "constitution," for the Magna Charta was in form and
substance as much a constitution as that which the thirteen
States of North America adopted in 1789. It defined and limited
the power of the Executive; it provided for the constitution and
assembling of a legislative body in a general council—a
Parliament; it regulated the general principles of judicial
power; and, finally, it was, from beginning to end, a bill of
rights for the people of England high and low—of all classes.
It is interesting in this connection to draw a parallel:
First: The Charter names the parties between whom it was
made. John, the party on the one side, and his Archbishops,
Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters,
Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, all Bailiffs, and his faithful
subjects, the parties on the other side.
{128}
The Constitution of the United States with more brevity, but
with equal comprehensiveness, proclaims that its provisions are
for the people of the United States.
Second: Magna Charta was a grant from a King—or, more
correctly, an acknowledgment ok deed of confirmation from a
King—clearly enumerating the rights of the people, and the
nature of the compact between them. It was accordingly sealed by
John, and attested by a cloud of attending witnesses. It was
coerced from him by an aroused people—at their risk, with arms
in their hands.
The Constitution of the United States was an agreement between
thirteen independent States, establishing a federative nation,
and duly signed by the representative of each State on behalf of
the people.
Third: The Charter of John deals with the rights to things and
the rights of persons. Many of these rights, being regulated by
the laws of the States of the Union, do not appear in the
Constitution of the United States, but are reserved by the
States.
Fourth: Article First of the Constitution of the United States
creates, apportions, and regulates the legislative power of the
Government with clearness and precision. A paragraph of Magna
Charta provides for the holding of the general Council
consisting of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and greater
Barons of the realm to be summoned "singly by our letters."
This, however, as well as Alfred's Witenagemote, answered {129}
rather the idea of a great council—it was an aristocratic
body—the origin of the House of Lords: all that was possible at
that day.
It further provides for the summoning generally, by "our
sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief
(tenants in capite) forty days" before their meeting at least,
and to a certain place, the cause of the summons being declared,
and the business to proceed on the day appointed.
Henry III., in 1258-59, called together the Barons in
Parliament, who in turn ordered that four Knights should be
chosen of each county; that they should make inquiry into
grievances of which their neighbourhood had reason to complain,
and should attend the ensuing Parliament, in order to give
information to that Assembly of the state of their particular
counties. This is a nearer approach to the present Parliament
than had been made by the Barons in the reign of King John, and
was the beginning of the House of Commons.[15]
By paragraph XII. of the Great Charter it was further provided
that no scutage or aid (in other words, taxation) should be
imposed, unless by the General Council of the Kingdom. This
principle was strongly reiterated in the Petition of Right
(1628).
Fifth: Magna Charta was a limitation of kingly power by the
aristocracy, but distinctively in favour of the people. The
"Barons' War" in Henry Third's reign, resulted in the full
establishment of the representative system of government,
i.e., the House of Commons.
{130}
The separation from the Church of Rome, as an instrument of
government, quite independent of any religious point of view,
secured laws, liberty, government, and freedom from foreign
domination.
The approach to a popular system under the House of Lancaster,
and the reaction towards despotism under the Tudors, growing out
of their peculiar historical situation, was again followed by a
powerful reaction towards liberty under the Stuarts. The
expulsion of the latter was followed by the establishment of a
constitutional system under William III., embracing, among other
things,
a. The declaration of rights.
b. Religious toleration (in the main).
c. The distinct recognition of the habeas corpus act enacted
under Charles II.
d. The germ of a ministry responsible directly to parliament
and indirectly to the people.
e. Freedom of speech and the press.
From all which great and wholly self-derived institutions were
created the instrumentalities of all political progress, both at
home and abroad. Holland, it is true, had tolerations, but they
were no less of native English growth.
Thus step by step can be traced the building of this great
political edifice, whose architecture was so closely followed by
our own American Constitution-builders.
The fundamental distinction between the English Government, as
portrayed and developed in Magna Charta, the Petition of Right,
and Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States,
{131} is that the aim of the former instruments was to define
and limit the powers of the monarch; while the latter sought at
once to create, specify, and restrict the authority of the
Federal Government. Both attempted to define and preserve the
rights of the people. The main objects are one; the divergencies
are the natural result of the prevailing conditions of both
countries. The distinctive aim of English political development
has been to obtain its objects by enlarging the powers of
Parliament, while the fundamental purpose of the American people
was to make a general government so constituted as to preserve
both the rights of the States and people. These correlative
purposes are remarkably illustrated in the method of
construction, for by Magna Charta it is provided, "It is also
sworn as well on our part as on the part of the Barons that all
of the things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith and
without evil subtility"—and in the Constitution of the United
States it is set forth in effect that the Imperium is to be
created, and then that the "powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution—nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people "; the
States being the reservoirs of all the free principles conferred
by them out of their abundance on the general government.
Substantially all the powers which were conceded to belong to
the monarch by these organic instruments, and by the political
records of England, were specifically conferred by the
Constitution of the United States upon the President.
{132}
Before the commencement of the War of 1776, the first volume of
Blackstone's Commentaries was published and in the hands of
all the American lawyers. The chapters upon the powers of
Parliament and the prerogative of, and restrictions upon, kingly
authority, were fully and perspicuously set forth therein. Here
was the fountain from which much of the inspiration of the
American Constitution makers was drawn. The influence of
Blackstone and its predecessor, the Spirit of Law, by
Montesquieu, both before and after the Revolution, was very
great. Nor do I overlook the influence which arose from a study
of Grecian history by some of its framers—although their
studies were said to be somewhat superficial.[16]
Our Bill of Rights, which was not adopted until after the
Constitution had been inaugurated, but which appears as the
first ten amendments to that instrument, was almost literally
copied from the Petition of Right, presented in the reign of
Charles I., by Parliament (1628) and the Bill of Rights of 1689.
The Constitution of the United States contains new matter,
especially as regards the delicate relation of the States to
each other and to the newly constituted government, not to be
found in Magna Charta, or in the Petition, or Bill of' Rights,
growing as it did out of the necessity of providing for a new
condition of affairs, but in everything fundamental and
substantial relating to the legislative, judicial, and executive
branches of the {133} government, it has faithfully followed the
principles of the English Constitution.
With the American appropriation and assimilation of these
inherited political ideas, there exists language, literature,
and all the rest of the kindred sympathies, making a tie
stronger than blood, and culminating in the grand conception of
federation developed into government, i.e., the Constitution
of the United States.
Mr. Gladstone unites the view of the English and American
Constitutions in the oft-quoted words ''as the British
Constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceeded
from progressive history, so the American Constitution is the
most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain
and purpose of man."
Who should acknowledge the value of all this, and the sacrifices
which it has cost England, if not we, who have inherited it, fed
upon it, grown upon it, and to-day livingly embody and exemplify
it?
Is not sympathy and brotherhood between the two peoples, the
natural, necessary, and inevitable outcome? "Whom God hath
joined together let no man put asunder."
VI.—THE SAME LAWS, LEGAL CUSTOMS, AND GENERAL MODES OF JUDICIAL
PROCEDURE
Closely allied to, if not a part of their political
institutions, comes another natural feature of the alliance, an
element more powerful than steel to rivet the bonds between the
two nations, i.e., the {134} same laws, customs, and general
modes of legal procedure.
The phenomenal and colossal development of North America is
somewhat explained by the fact that we were not compelled to
create or originate our political institutions, laws, or
judicial modes of procedure; these were all ready for us when we
commenced the business of an independent government. The
materials were at hand with which we were to build the grand
structure of democracy. Whatever difficulty was experienced in
the design, whatever time was spent in the building, was
attributable to the jealousies, fears and anxieties of the
delegates who represented the thirteen original independent
States in the Constitutional Convention. The great and almost
insurmountable barrier to the creation of the Republic arose out
of an inability to agree to a common basis of association on
becoming members of the same family, and surrendering the
independent and supreme rights of sovereignty which each of the
contracting parties possessed. As colonies we knew no law but
the common law; we profited by its utility; we imbibed its
teachings; no study was more general among the people. After the
Union had become a fait accompli, in most of the States it was
solemnly adjudged to remain in force. A new field, corresponding
to the growth and importance of the country, was opened to its
influence, both here and in England. The two countries now
mutually profit by each other in this respect, finding a
never-failing source of legal illumination, not only in their
judicial {135} precedents and statutory enactments, but in the
many admirable text-books—critical, expository and historical,
which deal with almost every conceivable subject of private or
public rights and duties, in all their practical and ethical
relations. Thus that mighty instrumentality, the Law, remains
substantially the same in both countries.
We fought the battles of the Revolution to become an independent
nation, but when we were free we established New England; we
voluntarily adopted every important principle of public and
private jurisprudence of the Mother country, and clothed
ourselves anew with her legal and judicial garments. The
materials of which our governmental house was built, the legal
furniture which was used in its embellishment and decoration, we
took from the well-stored warehouse of English institutions, and
Gladstone's eulogy, which I have quoted above, is no less
deserved because the builders of this new government assimilated
the architecture and appropriated the materials of existing
political institutions and legal principles to their new
structure.
But we would be a strange people—wholly careless of history,
utterly indifferent to our own political genealogy, if we did
not realise and appreciate this splendid record which England
had been making through bloody sacrifices and internal struggles
for more than twelve centuries—from the reign of Alfred the
Great to that of William III., the fruits of which were so fully
utilised and enjoyed by us in the establishment of {136} our
government. I am not stopping to coin eulogies. I am simply
pointing out the facts—facts of supreme importance, but which
from their very obviousness have been too easily lost sight of.
But it is just to remark in this connection, that the framers of
our Constitution did not blindly, heedlessly, and mechanically
copy the English models. Every principle was submitted to the
test of severe and analytical argument, every plank that entered
into the construction of the Ship of State was thoroughly
examined and shown to be sound before it was put into its
appropriate place. As the artists and architects model from the
works of Angelo and Raphael so the men who fashioned our organic
law intelligently studied, assimilated, and applied the
principles of the English Constitution to our own government.
They showed an artistic, profound, and delicate exercise of
judgment, an almost divine perception of the purposes and
necessities of the people in the selection of the materials for
the laws of the country. These necessities were found to be
fully provided for in the legal archives of the old government,
which we were simply expanding.
In a few instances we did not adopt their laws.
For example, in the rule applicable to the descent of real
property, the Americans struck out the doctrine of
primogeniture, but substantially adopted the entire body of
English law appertaining to real estate. The law forms; the
procedure; the principles applicable to the rights of persons
and things; criminal law, equity jurisprudence, {137} were taken
en bloc, with exceptions too trifling to be mentioned.
The rules, principles, and forms of English jurisprudence were
so fitted to the spirit and genius of our people, that (with but
several trifling exceptions, such as a few small treatises on
Justices' Courts and Sheriffs), after the adoption of our
Constitution, there was not a single elementary treatise of
American Law published in the United States until 1826—at which
time Kent's Commentaries made its appearance, and it is
remarkable that, as legal science has advanced in this country,
the prejudices of its professors have softened towards the
country from which its materials have been chiefly drawn.
VII.—THE SAME TENDENCY AND METHODS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND
WORSHIP
In both the British Empire and the United States, there is an
official, and an almost universal, recognition of a superhuman
power to whom allegiance and service are regarded as justly due.
This is religion in a broad, comprehensive sense.
In each nation we find instances of cruel and unjustifiable
religious intolerance and persecution; but the tendency has
always been towards liberality and religious freedom.
In no other nation upon the globe does religion flourish in all
its forms and sects as in these countries.
Without agreement or imitation, we find the {138} march of
religious freedom keeping about the same pace in each nation.
What does this prove? The same religious impulses, thoughts,
freedom, education, and growth; a family physically disunited,
with one religious conception moulding their convictions in the
same groove of thought. In England and the United States, for
example, the Catholic religion flourishes and expands even more
than in those countries where it is the established and official
worship! Every branch of Protestantism is encouraged and grows
in this congenial soil of English liberty. Religious
independence and toleration are conspicuously planted in the
heart of every true Anglo-Saxon. We can point with pride, on the
one hand, to the toleration of rationalistic views upon
religious subjects; and, on the other, to the growth and
expansion of Christianity, and their joint influence upon our
progress and civilisation.
Anglo-Saxon unity, strength, and progress owe, perhaps, as much
to Christianity in all its forms, as to any other cause. It
ought to be one of the most potent influences towards the
unification of the Anglo-Saxon people. No nobler topic can
occupy the attention of the pulpit.
VIII.—INTERMARRIAGES
Following the growth of other influences is intermarriage. Every
day it becomes more frequent. It is not difficult for the
individuals of the one country to become members of the homes of
the other, and, as the Atlantic now only affords {139} the
opportunity of a pleasant excursion, whatever there was of
physical isolation in the past has almost disappeared. Female
influence is here seen performing its salutary work to the best
advantage in removing prejudice and harmonising opinions and
manners. Such all-important instrumentalities act with a sort of
geometrical aggregation, and constitute one of the surest means
of making us all members of one great household.
IX.—OTHER SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS, EXHIBITING THE
NATURAL FEATURES OF THE ALLIANCE, SUCH AS THE DRAMA, SPORTS,
PASTIMES, HABITS OF LIVING
From all these sources there flow influences which increase the
volume and strength of the movement towards unification.
Let us advert briefly to the drama. Besides its influence as
literature, it forms, in its visual representation, no
unimportant part in shaping the affinities of the two countries.
What more potent influence can be conceived in this respect than
the mighty Shakespeare? And so through the long list of his
contemporaries and successors. Whatever has been seen on the
stage becomes at once the common property of both peoples. The
interchange so afforded of the varying types of the same manners
and ideas—the very personalities of the performers—has been an
agency no less certain than subtle in moulding the two peoples
into one. And it may be noticed, in proof of this, how {140}
instantly we detect the stamp of foreign thought and manners,
when any play that is not English is represented.
Why should I dwell upon this phase of the subject? Simply to
show that, do what we may, we cannot unfamiliarise ourselves—we
cannot escape from our natural tendencies. Suppose it were
suggested that the United States should establish a common and
perpetual relation with some foreign nation other than England?
Could we invoke any of these natural elements of sympathy and
bonds of relationship to support the movement? Suppose it were
proposed to consolidate France and England? Or France and the
United States? Or Russia and England? Or the United States and
Russia? Is it not evident, at least at this stage of their
development, that the union or coalition would be unnatural? In
sports, pastimes, drama, habits of living, how utterly
irreconcilable are the Russians and English? In all phases of
their individual and national life, in their moral, political,
and religious education and sentiments, there are constantly
cropping out all kinds of diversities and incongruities. Oil and
water will not commingle.
X.—RÉSUMÉ
Finally, to sum up and put these thoughts together; to aggregate
the natural elements which would render a national marriage
between the United States and England justifiable, healthful,
and prosperous, we find that we are of the same {141} family; we
speak the same language; we have the same literature; we are
governed substantially by the same political institutions; we
possess similar laws, customs, and general modes of legal
procedure; we follow the same tendency and methods of religious
thought and practice; we have numerous inter-marriages and
innumerable similarities in our sports, pastimes, drama, and
habits of living—a natural community in everything important.
Pursue the English and Americans into their homes, into their
churches, into their courts, and political institutions; into
their business and commercial lives; into their theatres,
amusements, and pastimes, we shall discover that we all "live,
move, and have our being" according to the same general
principles and methods of thought.
Are not the foundations of an international relation, when made
of such materials, solid and secure? Is not a tree planted in
such congenial soil sure to grow and bear noble fruit?
[1] Vol. i., Gibbon's Roman Empire, p. 256.
[2] De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, p. 33.
[3] Grote's Greece, vol. ii., pp. 319 and 320 et seq.
[4] Race and Language, p. 106.
[5] Herodotus, book viii., chap. cxliii. (Rawlinson).
[6] Herodotus, book viii., chap. cxliv. (Rawlinson).
[7] Read in this connection the address of Lord Brougham, when
elected Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow, delivered
April 9. 1825.
[8] Speech at Oxford, Works, vol. i., p. 438.
[9] "England," says Mr. Carlyle, "before long, this Island of
ours, will hold but a small fraction of the English; in America,
in New Holland, east and west to the very Antipodes, there will
be a Saxondom covering great spaces of the globe. And now,
what is it that can keep all these together into virtually one
Nation, so that they do not fall-out and fight, but live at
peace, in brother-like intercourse, helping one-another? . . .
Yes, this Shakspeare is ours; we produce him, we speak and think
by him; we are of one blood and one kind with him. The most
common-sense politician, too, if he pleases, may think of that."
[10] Green's History of the English People, vol. i., p. 91.
[11] Green's History of the English People, vol. i., p. 91.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Reeves's History of the English Law, by Finlason, p. 230.
Green's English People, vol. i., p. 116.
[14] Green's English People, vol. i., p. 244,
[15] Hume's History of England, vol. i., pp. 549-550.
[16] Freeman's History of Federal Government in Greece and
Italy, 2nd Edition, p. 249.
{142}
CHAPTER V
THE SELFISH CAUSES WHICH PROVOKE AND SUPPORT AN ALLIANCE,
EXAMINED
I NOW pass into another sphere of thought not less important
than the one I have just left, but where the motives found are
of a purely selfish and practical nature. It is said that the
foundation of all human action is either sympathy or
selfishness.[1] I have appealed to the first, I now invoke the
common interests of the two nations—a selfish motive, but one
of inestimable importance in the study of the question of an
Anglo-Saxon union.
I.—THE COMMON INTERESTS OF BOTH COUNTRIES DEMAND
CO-OPERATION—IDENTITY OF INTERNATIONAL ACTION
It is with nations as with individuals; the larger and more
valuable the commercial relations grow, the greater necessity
there is for close, frank, and cordial ties between them. The
heart must follow the pocket. While the laws of business are
based upon inexorable principles of supply and demand, and the
efforts of producers must be to sell to {143} consumers the best
goods at the lowest prices, which stimulates rivalry and trade,
yet two men cannot be successful partners in commercial affairs
unless they act in perfect sympathy and accord. Nor can a
merchant retain his customers unless there be a certain amount
of mutual confidence and respect existing between them. Close
international relations with our best customer, therefore,
appeal directly to our interest—to our pockets.
I wish in this connection to recall a piece of history, unknown
to some, overlooked by others, and ignored by most of us. I do
not use it as a makeweight—but only as exhibiting one phase of
our development. It was with the aid of English capital that our
commercial life in its broad sense began. English financial
support originally enabled us to open and build up our country;
to attain a point where our phenomenal and natural conditions
propelled our advance without outside aid. Whether English
capital sought investment and expected profit to result
therefrom—an expectation many, many times unfulfilled, it was
her money which we used to aid in our development by the opening
of this great country through large and small systems of
railroad and water communications.
Even if we had paid all these advances, which we have not, we
should not forget it was English and not French or Russian money
which sent us moving towards great national prosperity; and
while this consideration is not paramount it should count for
something in this discussion.
{144}
Once begun, the commercial and financial relations of the two
countries have broadened and deepened until, to-day, they are so
intricate and immense that we are practically one mercantile
community. We are partners and co-helpers in finance, industry,
and commerce. It is not necessary to cite full statistics. They
are known, and have been used to cover every phase of our
commercial history. We are commercially and financially so
intertwined that it is impossible to unravel the cords of
interest that bind us together.
Exports of merchandise from the United States for the year
ending June 30,
1899 1900 1901
Into the United
Kingdom $511,778,705 $533,829,374 $631,266,263
Into all other
parts of Europe. 424,823,388 506,337,938 504,825,997
Imports of merchandise into the United States for the year
ending June 30,
1899 1900 1901
From the United
Kingdom $118,488,217 $159,583,060 $143,365,901
From all other
parts of Europe. 235,396,317 280,926,420 286,070,279[2]
Pure interest, therefore, is always at work to cement and
tighten our relations with England; and in testing the motives
which influence human conduct, which one can be found stronger
than self-interest?
{145}
II.—SELF-PRESERVATION—PROTECTION—NECESSITY
Of the different motives which individuals or nations invoke to
defend or justify their actions, none are higher, or more
universally recognised than those of
self-preservation—protection—necessity—which are
interchangeable terms.
Self-preservation is a broad and essential attribute of
individual and national existence. It is not confined to a mere
present danger, but extends to the future, and anticipates evils
which are growing or maturing; it scents the approach of danger
and prepares for it in advance.
The people of the United States are unconscious of any present
external danger, and perhaps none exists. But it is a very
short-sighted and foolish policy to confine our politics and
diplomacy to mere present conditions. The brightest sunshine is
followed by the gloomiest skies. The Spanish War revealed what a
European alliance against us without England's aid might mean.
The very wisdom of to-day, therefore, forces us to look into
futurity. It is simple prudence to cast our eyes around the
civilised world, and study and endeavour to comprehend the
movements and directions of the other political bodies. Are not
our motions as a nation jealously and eagerly watched by the
European powers? While we are secure now, is it safe to assume
that we shall always be? England, on the other hand, is in daily
peril. She is the target for all European combinations. Envy and
hatred pursue her hourly,—very causeless envy and hatred, as it
seems to me, or, if not causeless, {146} arising only from that
spirit of legitimate enterprise in which we again are so much
like her. To whom should she look in a moment of real danger? In
what direction should she cast her eyes? Should it not be upon
her own family,—her own offspring? Are we so blind that we
cannot see that the decimation or destruction of England's power
is a blow to ourselves? And what position would we occupy with
the combined powers against us, with England as their ally, or
acting as a neutral, or (what is most horrible to conceive)
powerless to aid us?
What is the present preponderating duty of our people? Is it not
to encourage, extend, and protect the Anglo-Saxon race wherever
it is to be found?
The principle of self-preservation is plain and universally
recognised; the occasion and necessity for its application are
equally clear. The salvation and perpetuation of the Anglo-Saxon
race furnishes a powerful, if not a preponderating motive for
perfect accord between the United States and the British Empire.
The expansion and preservation of the race are to be attained
only by union, which self-interest inspires. The failure to
adopt it is an act of felo de se.
III.—DUTY
I have said before, in substance,[3] that a nation has a duty to
perform to itself and to the outside world, precisely as an
individual has a duty to fulfil {147} to himself and his
fellow-beings. The entire limit of either's obligation is not
performed by simply attending to his own selfish needs.
The more civilised we are the clearer this duty is enjoined. As
Demosthenes said: "To a Democracy nothing is more essential than
scrupulous regard to equity and justice." A nation does not
exist merely for pure selfishness—or simply to protect the
lives, enhance the fortunes, and secure the happiness of its own
immediate citizens. It cannot erect a wall around its people and
live entirely within itself. This is as unnatural as it is
impossible. There must be intercommunion with other powers and
peoples. To render its full duty to its citizens, there must be
intermingling with outside nations. Through these means its own
people become richer, more prosperous, and cultivated, and the
nations with whom it associates benefit proportionately from the
intercourse. With us there can be no such thing as national
isolation. Especially is this remark applicable to the United
States at this time; on the eve of embarking upon a colonial
policy. Our hands once placed upon a colony can never be
withdrawn. This is one of the characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon
race and in our case strongly supported by duty. We shall
benefit the colonists in all ways, but they will remain part of
our system until it is dissolved.
Our duty, growing out of the best and noblest conceptions of the
origin and purpose of social existence, should teach us, along
with our material interests and often by means of them, to
propagate {148} and extend everywhere the principles upon which
our civilisation is founded.
I do not mean that this thought should inspire conquest—for
mere enlargement of territory or other aggrandisement. On the
contrary, in our dealings with and treatment of other nations,
the abstract principles of right should never be forgotten.
But, wherever we land in our national pilgrimage, either by
conquest or purchase, we must reign supreme.
I take it for granted that our views upon these subjects are the
most humane and liberal. At least this is our great boast. We
claim to lead civilisation. Is this assumption justified? The
history of our lives from our national birth until the present
time must be appealed to.[4] It is perhaps true that we have not
always lived up to our ideals, but these ideals have never been
destroyed. They may have been obscured, but the clouds which
covered them have lifted again, and they have reappeared in
their original vigour and beauty. It seems to be a marked
characteristic of an Anglo-Saxon to propagate and push his
principles everywhere. Without boasting, unconsciously, he goes
on to the mark, and often with an appearance of cynical
indifference. Inwardly he is not content unless all whom he
meets participate in his enlightenment, and when it becomes in
any degree difficult or impracticable, it may be assumed that
the fault is not wholly his. Where racial or other antagonism is
so pronounced as to render assimilation impossible, {149} there
is at least the minimum of evil in the onward march to a higher
plane. The idea of most other nations is to limit their national
principles to themselves. They seem to take no real interest in
sowing their political seeds in foreign soils. Their objects are
purely selfish.
It is our contention that the influence of the Anglo-Saxon race
has been for good everywhere; that its principles have found
lodgment in some form or other in all governments; that its laws
and customs have percolated more or less into all political
systems; and that all existing political bodies have in
substance, if not in form, consciously or unconsciously
engrafted into their systems some of the notions and principles
of liberty and justice as applied by the English-speaking
people. England has been called, and truly, "the mother of
constitutions and the constitutional system." Our principles of
national and individual liberty are so inseparable from true
government that where they are not found, a real, beneficial,
political institution does not exist.
As Mr. Webster said[5]:
"Now, Gentlemen, I do not know what practical views or what
practical results may take place from this great expansion of
the power of the two branches of Old England. It is not for me
to say; I only can see, that on this continent all is to be
Anglo-American from Plymouth Rock to the Pacific seas, from the
north pole to California. That is certain; and in the Eastern
world I only see that you can hardly place a {150} finger on a
map of the world and be an inch from an English settlement.
Gentlemen, if there be anything in the supremacy of races, the
experiment now in progress will develop it. If there be any
truth in the idea that those who issued from the great Caucasian
fountain, and spread over Europe, are to react on India and on
Asia, and to act on the whole Western world, it may not be for
us, nor our children, nor our grandchildren to see it, but it
will be for our descendants of some generation to see the extent
of that progress and dominion of the favoured races. For myself,
I believe there is no limit fit to be assigned to it by the
human mind, because I find at work everywhere, on both sides of
the Atlantic, under various forms and degrees of restriction on
the one hand, and under various degrees of motive and stimulus
on the other hand, and in these branches of a common race, the
great principle of the freedom of human thought and the
respectability of individual character . . . I find everywhere
an elevation of the character of man as man, an elevation of the
individual as a component part of society; I find everywhere a
rebuke of the idea that the many are made for the few, or that
government is anything but an agency for mankind. And I care
not beneath what zone, frozen, temperate, or torrid; I care not
what complexion, white or brown; I care not under what
circumstances of climate or cultivation, if I can find a race of
men on an inhabitable spot of earth whose general sentiment it
is, and whose general feeling it is, that government is made for
man—man as a religious, moral, and social being—and not man
for government, there I know that I shall find prosperity and
happiness."
Following in the wake of these premises, therefore, arises our
duty to propagate Anglo-Saxon principles; to increase and
multiply its peoples; to strengthen and extend its influences;
to carry its banners everywhere a human foot can tread and human
energy be felt.
Some may think that their interests concur with {151} their
prejudices to prevent the union of the Anglo-Saxon people, no
matter in what form, or for what object, the alliance is
created. It would be difficult to define these interests, but
whether they be real or unreal, substantial or immaterial, no
attention should be given to any opposition supposedly arising
out of them. If we are actuated by pure motives, which are made
clear and are understood, we shall emerge from the struggle as
the race always has, in victory.
And thus we have linked to the natural; sympathetic influences
which operate to bring us closer together, the elements of
self-interest and self-preservation, protection, and
necessity; and, finally, to crown all, a high and mighty
duty.
Here are centred all the motives of selfishness and all the
influences of sympathy which are necessary to create and
permanently continue a great political intermarriage,—a
combination and a form indeed upon which "every god did seem to
set his seal" to give the world the assurance of a great,
prosperous and imperishable union.
[1] See Buckle, vol. ii., p. 334 et seq.
[2] Review of the World's Commerce, issued from the Bureau of
Foreign Commerce, Department of State, Washington, D. C., 1902.
[3] Ante, p. 62 et seq.
[4] Ante, p. 71 et seq.
[5] Speech of Daniel Webster, delivered on the 22nd of December,
1843, at the Public Dinner of the New England Society of New
York, in Commemoration of the Landing of the Pilgrims.
{152}
CHAPTER VI
THE MEANS BY WHICH A CLOSER UNION MAY BE CREATED AND MAINTAINED
I HAVE already spoken of the ineffectiveness, in truth I should
say the hollowness, of mere expressions of good feeling, of the
airy and fleeting entente cordiale, between the English and
American people, arising out of temporary enthusiasm—or
sentimental passion.[1]
On the other hand, I have discarded as wholly impracticable and
dangerous a fixed, definite, written treaty of
alliance—defensive and offensive. The people break away from
the former, and the latter exists only until some temporary or
imaginary selfish purpose or interest requires it to be broken.
{153} Is there not some medium, conservative ground between a
sentimental entente and a written alliance which will
indissolubly unite the Anglo-Saxon race in national sympathy and
purpose? Let us consider this aspect of the subject.
I admit that some preparation must be made in the minds of the
people of our race; that seeds must be sown in the ground of
public opinion before a conclusion can be reached between the
Anglo-Saxons upon this important subject. But these are times
for quick action,—events mature soon,—and the last few years
have been prolific in conditions which have opened the eyes and
ripened the judgment of the English-speaking people. We have
been brought close together by the instrumentalities of steam,
electricity, and science; our commercial interests have
interlocked us in a thousand ways; we have had the experience of
the Spanish War; frequent intermingling has made us better
acquainted with each other; in one word, the experiences of the
last five years have done more to unite us as a people than all
our combined antecedent history. The scales have dropped from
our eyes as if by a miracle, and we can now regard ourselves in
the mirror of our true interest and destiny.
I accordingly claim that the time and the people are alike ripe
for some action which will tend to establish an indissoluble
relation. It would be an ideal condition if we could act
together for ever without the stroke of a pen—inspired by mere
affection and sympathy; but the chain moulded in {154} the fires
of sentiment, no matter how effective in some regards, is not
strong enough to bind the Anglo-Saxons together.
There are three methods by which a union may be established:
First, by uniting all the English and Americans into one nation.
At the present time such a course is absolutely impracticable,
for reasons so weighty and obvious that they need not be
mentioned.[2] What the far future will develop I shall not now
seek to foretell; I can only raise the curtain high enough to
enable us to behold our near destiny. But the necessities of the
English-speaking people may yet drive them into one nation, and
from such a possibility they need not shrink. The entire
English-speaking races might be happily united under a
constitutional monarchy, or a republican federative
government. Many worse things could happen to them in their
national life than their consolidation into one nation. But as
there is nothing in existing conditions which requires such a
radical and revolutionary step, I regard its discussion as quite
useless. I allude to it merely to clear the way for more
practical suggestions.[3]
The second means by which a permanent union could be created
between Great Britain and her colonies, and the United States
and her colonies {155} and dependencies, would be by
establishing a federation. A federation, however, is also
impracticable. A federation is the union of several independent
states for purposes of mutual interest, protection, and support;
each state reserving the control of its own internal affairs,
but surrendering to the federative council, or body, or
executive, whichever may be chosen to exercise them, all powers
necessary to enable the government thus created to deal with
foreign or external questions, and to carry out the purposes for
which the federation has been established.
The difficulty in establishing a federation is, that neither the
United States nor England would be willing to surrender its
national individuality and rank in the same degree of statehood
as Canada, Australia, or one of the minor colonies or
dependencies of either of the first-named countries. A
federation places each independent state, politically at least,
upon an equal footing, and the disparity of population, or
territory (to say nothing of prestige) is too great to render
such a plan practicable.[4]
A third method of creating a union between these nations is by a
treaty binding upon all of {156} them, by which certain rules
shall be established regulating their relations towards each
other, but not to foreign nations. This I believe furnishes
practical means of establishing a permanent and substantial
understanding, entente, or union between the English-American
people; and when I have used the terms "union," "alliance," and
the like, in the preceding parts of this book, I mean that,
whatever it may be called, it shall be created by a written
instrument, and attested by a legal, constitutional, and binding
treaty between all of the English and American powers and
colonies.
By this method a union can be established without forming a
federation—which means too much on the one side, in the
surrender of position and individuality by the United States and
England—while mere vague, indefinite expressions of sympathy
and ephemeral good feeling, on the other, accomplish too little.
It is too much to demand or expect a federation; while a mere
moral entente falls short in effectiveness and practical
result. We have already passed through the stage of an entente
consisting of mutual good-will, interest, forbearance, and
respect; we have a good and solid knowledge of each other, so
that we are now ready to cement this feeling by measures which
will bring us so close together as to be practically one people.
I therefore open a conservative method—a compromise between a
federation and mere verbal expressions of good-will, which can
be consummated by a treaty authorised by the people of the
United {157} States and by the Parliament of Great Britain, and
by the peoples of all the colonies of both nations, and which
shall embrace the following subjects:
First: The Dominion of Canada voluntarily to divide itself
into such different states, geographically arranged, as its
citizens desire, in proportion to population, and each state to
be admitted as a full member of the American Union in accordance
with the conditions of the Constitution of the United States.
Second: To establish common citizenship between all the
citizens of the United States and the British Empire.
Third: To establish absolute freedom of commercial intercourse
and relations between the countries involved, to the same extent
as that which exists between the different States constituting
the United States of America.
Fourth: Great Britain and the United States to coin gold,
silver, nickel, and copper money, not necessarily displaying the
same devices or mottoes, but possessing the same money value,
and interchangeable everywhere within the limits covered by the
treaty; and to establish a uniform standard of weights and
measures.
Fifth: To provide for a proper and satisfactory arbitration
tribunal to decide all questions which may arise under the
treaty.
I shall proceed to give in detail my reasons for each of these
propositions. I am conscious that this general plan may be, in
many of its details, susceptible to criticism. But it furnishes
a basis {158} for discussion and amendment. I give it as a
whole. Mould it, shape it, until it is symmetrical, and its
dimensions rise as sublime and majestic as the greatest
monuments of ancient and modern liberty. Magna Charta and the
Constitution of the United States were formed to establish, and
have preserved, the principles of liberty, justice, and equality
among the Anglo-Saxon race.
Let us, the descendants of the pioneers of this race, perpetuate
and further extend our influence, power, and the political
beatitudes which form our system of government, by uniting in a
common brotherhood, and attested by a third monumental
instrument which will further instinctively mark our progress as
a people.
[1] Take the history of the Anglo-American League (ante p. 57)
as an illustration of such sporadic influences and their
results. That League was formed in London during the
Spanish-American War. It was hailed in the United States with
expressions of keen delight. But, the war ended, American
enthusiasm oozed out; the Boer War began, manifestations were
had in the United States against England, the whole efforts of
the League were neutralised, if not frustrated, and the wishers
for a real union between the countries sadly demoralised. The
League is now almost forgotten, and many of its most respectable
members are quite willing to conceal the fact that such a
society ever existed. Yet the motives of its formation were
noble and unselfish; its membership highly respectable and
influential; but it confined its acts to mere resolutions; it
was inspired by fleeting sentimental conditions.
[2] Still the author of The Americanization of the World, W.
T. Stead, boldly advocates such a step.
[3] But the thought is not one which sees the light for the
first time in this book. It was the dream of many English and
Americans before the Revolution, as Mr. Lecky attests: "The
maintenance of one free, industrial, and pacific empire,
comprising the whole English race, holding the richest plains of
Asia in subjection, blending all that was most venerable in an
ancient civilisation with the redundant energies of a youthful
society, and destined in a few generations to outstrip every
competitor and acquire an indisputable ascendancy on the globe,
may have been a dream, but it was at least a noble one, and
there were Americans who were prepared to make any personal
sacrifices rather than assist in destroying it." Mr. Lecky uses
this language in eulogising the course of the Loyalists during
the Revolution.—History of England in the Eighteenth Century,
vol. iii., p. 418.
[4] See in this connection Professor Freeman's Greater Greece
and Greater Britain, Appendix, p. 105, where reference is made
to an attempt more than fifteen years ago to establish a
federation between Great Britain and her Colonies under the
paradoxical title of "Imperial Federation."
{159}
CHAPTER VII
THE SUBJECTS TO BE COVERED BY A TREATY
I. The Dominion of Canada voluntarily to divide itself into
different states, geographically arranged as its citizens
desire, in proportion to population, and each state to be
admitted as a full member of the American Union.
I approach this subject with the greatest diffidence, for,
plainly as I perceive its necessity, I mistrust my ability to
make clear to others the motives and causes which induce me to
believe that the consolidation of Canada into our Republic is an
indispensable condition to the establishment of a complete and
permanent brotherhood between the Anglo-Saxon people. Canada a
part of the United States by her free and voluntary act,
generously and freely seconded by England, and graciously
accepted by the United States, the Anglo-Saxon race eo
instanti becomes a unit in sympathy, purpose, and progress.
With Canada a separate nation, as she is now, a real, lasting
entente between the British Empire and the United States, is
impossible.
"'T is true 't is pity; and pity 't is 't is true."
{160}
At the first blush I am sure to encounter reluctance and
opposition on all sides—from the Canadians as well as the
English and Americans. I meet at the outset sentiment and pride,
two of the strongest and most invincible sentinels that guard
the approach to human reason and judgment. As Mr. Lecky says:
"The sentiment of nationality is one of the strongest and most
respectable by which human beings are actuated. No other has
produced a greater amount of heroism and self-sacrifice, and no
other, when it has been seriously outraged, leaves behind it
such enduring and such dangerous discontent."[1]
While the bond existing between England and Canada is
sentimental and as "light as air," it creates a union between
the two people "as strong as iron." Canada would never renounce
England's formal sovereignty without her fullest and freest
consent; and I believe England would exhaust the last drop of
her blood to prevent a forcible annexation. Canadian sentiment
and English pride stand ready to oppose the proposition. The
United States, on the other hand, does not seek or want Canada
to join the Union, and deep and strong opposition to such a
course may also be encountered here. On the mere face of the
question, therefore, annexation seems difficult and hard to
accomplish. It should not be forced. It cannot be bought.
Neither arms, money, nor commercial advantages can be of
themselves sufficient potent factors to accomplish this end. It
{161} must come voluntarily: it must spring from the hearts of
the people. It is well not to underestimate the difficulties of
the proposition, and with that view I have gone beneath the
surface in search of higher and nobler motives than those which
ordinarily impel individual or national action. In this way only
can sentiment be satisfied and pride placated. But it will be
argued by some, ice must be broken to reach annexation; if all
three parties interested must be converted to this view, why
not, if it is to come at all, leave it to the "fulness of time,"
or, in other words, to processes entirely natural. As it now
stands, say they, there is no impelling necessity, no heavy past
experience of evils to force us together, as in the case of
Scotland, and of our thirteen original States—no circumstances,
on the other hand, that directly favour it.
But I ask the Canadians, the English, and the Americans, in all
seriousness, When will the "fulness of time" occur? I assert
that the fulness of time has been reached, and that the natural
processes have matured. They have ripened over night as the
result of years being crowded into two events—the
Spanish-American and the Boer Wars. These wars show us our
weaknesses and our strength.
The Anglo-Saxons, to be impregnable, must be united. I shudder
to draw the reverse picture. Shall we wait until a dispute
occurs between us? Shall we fold our arms until a war breaks
out, and reveals through its lurid light our real relation to
{162} each other? Thucydides says: "In peace and prosperity both
states and individuals are actuated by higher motives, because
they do not fall under the dominion of imperious
necessities."[2] If we wait until our necessities tell us that
we belong to one family and should be confederated together, who
can divine the conditions and inequalities which will result?
Can we not now, therefore, look the situation fully and candidly
in the face, and decide calmly and dispassionately in what our
best interests consist?
I admit that the mere aggrandisement of the United States by the
extension of her territory; the benefit to Canada by opening the
door to material development and improved commercial privileges;
the release of England from the heavy and unprofitable
responsibility of defending Canada against attacks by the United
States,—these are influences which, though none are more
weighty and important, would not of themselves operate to
produce annexation. They must be combined with others,
connected with the future welfare and progress of all the three
powers involved. We must all see and realise that our future
onward march can only be successfully made together. Interest,
in other words, must be combined with sentiment. In the great
march towards civilisation we cannot take separate paths. The
Anglo-Saxons must go together.
I take it for granted, therefore, that we truly believe the
solidarity of the Anglo-Saxon races is the {163} great
desideratum of this century; and that although it may be more
important to England than to the United States or Canada to
hasten this result, yet all three are so bound up together that
in the end they are vitally interested in bringing about a
common understanding as quickly as circumstances will admit it.
The present relation which Canada and the United States and
England bear to each other confirms this last view. England is
the third party standing between Canada and the United States in
the negotiation. What is her position? What are her interests?
What position has she in the ultimate annexation of Canada? What
should she do—aid or oppose annexation? I shall endeavour to
answer these questions satisfactorily.
The present Dominion of Canada, consisting of the Provinces of
Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island,
Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, and the other unorganised
territories, was created by virtue of the Act of the Imperial
Parliament of Great Britain, entitled "The British North
American Act, 1867." This Statute practically constituted the
Dominion of Canada an independent nation, subject only to the
Imperial power of Great Britain as to its foreign relations.
Since its passage the English Government exercises no more
actual rule in the Dominion of Canada than it does in Chicago or
New York; in fact, Canada can even maintain formidable tariffs
to keep Great Britain out of her markets. I do not overlook the
fact that Canadian co-operation, {164} in men and money, may
always be relied upon by the mother country in the time of her
need, nor do I belittle the moral support which the Canadians
will extend to her when required. Canada is a pure and shining
jewel in her imperial crown.
Therefore she would undoubtedly make sacrifices in parting with
Canada. But she could not retain Canada by force against the
will of the latter; and she would not do so even if she could.
While it is also true that a formal English representation is
still kept up, the Dominion of Canada as a matter of fact,
through a Governor-General, is now bound to Great Britain,
notwithstanding the forms created by the Act of 1867, only by a
mere sentimental tie—a bond of sympathy recently, by the Boer
War, renewed and strengthened and now so strong that both Canada
and Great Britain would probably exhaust themselves in
endeavouring to maintain it if sought to be forcibly rent
asunder. Such is the ligament which binds these two powers.
Conquest in such a case, even in the event of war, is out of
the question. If the Canadians were subdued by the Americans,
God forbid that they should sink so low in the scale of
generosity and national manhood as to forcibly annex them to
their Government! And, if conquest will not avail, it requires
something more than logic and selfish argument to dissolve such
a tie. The particular sympathy which exists between Canada and
the British Empire must be balanced by the future vital
interests of the whole Anglo-Saxon people; and while mere
selfish interests might not {165} alone appeal to these three
nations to agree voluntarily to annexation, the ultimate
safety, welfare, progress, and unity of the whole
Anglo-Saxon race should affect them when everything else might
fail. Would the Canadians stand in the way of the accomplishment
of such a mighty result? Would not England under such
circumstances generously yield to a request of Canada for
consent to annexation?
I shall endeavour to traverse the whole field of the discussion,
and lay bare every view that can influence fair and honest
judgment. As a matter of fact, the position of England, as she
stands between Canada and the United States, is not an enviable
one. She is liable any minute to be involved in a war with the
latter power on account of the former, in whom she has not a
great material interest, and from whom her people receive very
little appreciable benefit. As a question of mere selfish
policy, therefore, England has everything to gain by the
annexation of Canada to the United States, and everything to
lose by continuing to be her formal sovereign and her actual
champion. It is true, that under the present relations, if
unhappily a war should ever occur between England and the United
States, England might worry the United States through Canada,
but it is not too much to say that this worriment would be of
short duration. Any misunderstanding between Canada and the
United States, involving war, precipitates England in a bloody
and ruinous contest with the United States, without having the
slightest {166} material interest in the issue. She would gain
by being relieved of this immense burden of responsibility,
which exists without any adequate quid pro quo, or
corresponding advantage. What more trying position for England
than the necessity of championing quarrels not of her own
making, where both of the contending parties have claims upon
her forbearance, and in a sphere where her powers and resources
would have to be employed to the full, and then only wasted?
There arises out of these conditions a question of grave import,
whether any nation is justified, before its own people, in
assuming such a burdensome relation. I do not argue the point, I
merely ask the question—"Has England the right to spill the
blood of her people and spend their money; should she involve
the happiness and future of her citizens to maintain this purely
sentimental tie?" Quite apart from all this, it is reasonably
certain, judging from her conduct towards her other colonies,
that if Canada should desire to disrupt the formal relations
existing between herself and England, the latter power would
acquiesce upon a simple request.
I pass, then, to the relations between Canada and the United
States accruing out of England's position. In the event of a
dispute between England and the United States, Canada, although
perfectly disinterested in the quarrel, is liable to be drawn
into a war, because she happens to have a formal relation with
England, and acknowledges that power as sovereign. The first
shock of a war {167} between England and the United States would
be felt by Canada. Her condition is paradoxical; it creates a
dilemma; it evolves a situation most remarkable and striking.
England can be forced into a war because of her empty and hollow
sovereignty over Canada; Canada is subject to destruction
because she officially acknowledges England's sovereignty.
Either nation is liable to invasion and devastation, if not
ruin, because of formal ties. If the power of England were to
decline and wane,—which Heaven forbid!—what would be the
future of Canada? Isolated from England, where could she turn,
except to the one contiguous power of the United States, and
perhaps under circumstances far less pleasant than those which
would accompany a voluntary union. These are serious aspects of
the question. Standing alone, notwithstanding their importance,
these considerations might not be overpowering, but if the
situation described above can be dissipated by a free,
voluntary, honourable, and wholesome alliance, is it not for the
advantage of all that it be accomplished, thereby removing for
all time the serious consequences which may at any moment arise
from these formal and anomalous conditions? Remove the cause and
avoid the result.
But there are other views which must not be overlooked or
disregarded. Canada is a friendly neighbour of the United
States, but a fast-growing commercial rival. Separated as
adjoining owners are from each other, by a mere partition, a
division line, and capable of walking upon the other's {168}
territory at will, the results of this physical contiguity are
easily foretold. Jealousies, rivalries, encroachments upon each
other, and grievances fast piling up between them, are liable to
set the feelings and passions of their people afire by the most
insignificant discord or incident. But why cannot we live
together as Christian neighbours and friends, striving to reach
a common goal, and attending to our own affairs? So far as mere
physical area is concerned, there is undoubtedly room for two
Anglo-Saxon nations to exist separately and independently upon
this continent, working out their own destinies in their own
way, and not only undisturbed, but aided and encouraged by each
other. Moreover, as Canada is the weaker nation, the Americans
should treat her not only fairly, but generously. I think that
this spirit predominates among the greater portion of the people
of the United States to-day. I do not believe there are any
considerable number of Americans anxious to have Canada become a
member of their political household, except by her free and
unqualified consent. I know there are only a few who would think
of force or purchase to consummate that result. But, on the
other hand, there are many Canadians and Americans who would
welcome annexation if it could be brought about graciously and
naturally. If Canada and the United States could exist as
independent nations; if their political orbits (in other words
their laws of movement) were fixed externally apart; if by
commercial treaties they would open to each other free and
unrestricted {169} trade; if their citizens would intermingle
not as jealous rivals and strangers, but as fair competitors and
friends, their international existence would be ideal. As long
as we are separated, I insist that decency and good manners
should teach us to treat Canada as a friend and neighbour. We
should study the rights and duties of meum et tuum. And no
matter what eventually becomes of the proposition here
suggested, we should be generous and broad in our treatment of
her. But is it safe to expect all this? Is it human nature? Will
not self-interest and temporary advantage dominate our behaviour
when the critical moment comes? I appeal to the good sense and
judgment of the Anglo-Saxon people; I point to all history to
answer these questions. I interject no opinion of my own, except
so far as it is founded upon the actions of states and nations
situated similarly to the United States and Canada. What has
been the result? If mutual consent has not brought them
together, has not union been accomplished by force? It would
have been ideal for the original thirteen States to have existed
as independent nations, developing and extending themselves into
the highest stages of civilisation; but aside from the immediate
necessity which drove them into a federation, how long could
they have existed apart as independent states? The cities of
Greece remained separate and independent for ages, but they at
length succumbed, vainly striving to combine when combination
was too late. And what was their condition before this? Were
they not constantly at war {170} with each other? Are not some
of our most glowing illustrations of the efficiency and
soundness of confederate governments drawn from the history of
Grecian cities; and is not the language of Professor Freeman, in
speaking of these Greek cities, most strikingly and forcibly
applicable to Canada and the United States?
"But there is a far greater evil inherent in a system of
separate free cities, an evil which becomes only more intense as
they attain a higher degree of greatness and glory. (And I might
add commercial rivalry.) This is the constant state of war which
is almost sure to be the result. When each town is perfectly
independent and sovereign, acknowledging no superior upon earth,
multitudes of disputes, which in a great monarchy or a federal
republic, may be decided by peaceful tribunals, can be settled
by nothing but an appeal to the sword. The thousand causes which
involve large neighbouring states in warfare all exist, and all
are endowed with tenfold force in the case of independent city
commonwealths. Border disputes, commercial jealousies, wrongs
done to individual citizens, the mere vague dislike which turns
a neighbour into a natural enemy, all exist, and that in a form
condensed and intensified by the very minuteness of the scene on
which they have to act. A rival nation is, to all but the
inhabitants of a narrow strip of frontier, a mere matter of
hearsay: but a rival whose dwelling-place is within sight of the
city gates quickly grows into an enemy who can be seen and felt.
The highest point which human hatred can reach has commonly been
found in the local antipathies between neighbouring cities.[2]
. . . The greatest work that orator or diplomat ever achieved
was when Demosthenes induced the two cities to lay aside their
differences and join in one common struggle for the defence of
Greece against the Macedonian invader."[3]
{171}
Another authority develops the same views:
"Neighbouring nations are natural enemies of each other, unless
their common weakness forces them to league in a confederate
republic, and their constitution prevents the differences that
neighbourhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy
which disposes all States to aggrandise themselves at the
expense of their neighbours."
This sentence is quoted by Alexander Hamilton,[5]. in reference
to which the latter adds this significant remark: "This passage
at the same time points out the evil and suggests the
remedy."
As long as we remain apart, are not tensions, discords, and
differences imminent? And at some unexpected moment will not a
fanatic, politician, or demagogue cast a brand into the fire of
discussion, and then will we not have war? As Canada grows in
her development, and increases in prosperity and population,
will not these dangers become more likely and pressing?[6] I
frankly and gladly admit that the chances of war between the
United States and England are becoming less probable every day.
The only existing bone of contention {172} which might create
war is Canada. There is no other question which cannot, and, I
hope, will not be settled by agreement, or arbitration. With
Canada annexed, and a common citizenship established, all
causes for differences would be removed, and we would
practically become one great nation, with one great purpose and
a single ambition—to civilise mankind.
The disadvantages and evils which result to the three nations
concerned from the present anomalous government of Canada are
apparent and susceptible of much more elaboration than I have
indulged in. I leave much to the imagination. Real harm may
ensue from opening up these matters with too much detail. On the
other hand, in searching for the advantages of union, we find
all the natural causes which tend to and justify the
consolidation of separate states present.
Contiguity of territory, the same race of people; the same
language, literature, and laws; the same political and religious
tendencies; the dominating necessities of commerce;
self-protection, mutual interest, motives of peace and
good-will—in fine, all those elements necessary to insure a
prosperous and permanent political marriage. Almost every reason
which operated upon the minds of the citizens of the original
thirteen States to create the present federation is to be found
in the case of Canada. She is naturally related to the United
States; she is only artificially connected with England. In a
commercial and material sense, the advantages of her annexation
to the United States {173} are potent. She would move forward
with gigantic strides, opening, developing, and peopling her
vast country. In separate States of the American Union, the
Canadians would cultivate and guard their own destinies, just as
the present States of the Union now do. The free and
unrestricted admixture of the people of the different States of
the American Union has been one of the causes of her vast
progress. Break down the political paper barrier which now
exists between Canadians and Americans, open the door between
them so that each can pass in and out of the other's country,
establish a free communion of persons and goods, and Canada
would leap into a condition of progress and prosperity equal to
that of our most envied and successful States. American capital,
invention, and push would combine with Canadian ability, energy,
and resources to reach the highest stage of individual and
national development.
The road to great prosperity is now blocked by the mere form of
a different citizenship, although we are really one people. We
are standing idly looking at each other, relying upon forced,
strained, and unnatural efforts to build up commercial
relations, when we have it in our power, by the stroke of a pen,
as it were, to reach the goal of business, fortune, and success.
Cannot the Canadians learn an important lesson from a study of
the history of Scotland? I do not mean to assert that there is a
perfect historical parallel, but there are significant events
connected with that history which certainly bear upon this {174}
discussion. Causes which led to the merger into one of the
different Saxon kingdoms, gradually to the annexation of Wales,
and finally to the absorption of the Palatinates, had long been
working toward similar results in both England and Scotland. The
wisest statesmen in these two countries deplored those miseries
which, till they ceased to be divided, each inflicted on the
other. The Scots, though uncertain, intractable, and
passionately jealous of their national liberties, again and
again allowed the question to approach the edge of solution.[1]
In fact, the union of Scotland and England was agitated in
different forms for many hundred years before it was
accomplished, with the most lamentable consequences in the
interim, to say nothing of the policy of Edward I., and the
aspirations and efforts of Henry VIII. to achieve that result
after the marriage of his sister, Margaret, with James IV. of
Scotland. The supreme effort of King James I., in 1606, to
effect a union between the two kingdoms, when the matter was
brought before Parliament, and the extraordinary zeal shown by
Sir Francis Bacon in support thereof, are well known. "Swayed
merely by the vulgar motive of national antipathy," as Hume puts
it,[2] the attempt was defeated, and one hundred years elapsed
before the important event was consummated. Upon its final
accomplishment, Scotland gave up many rights and accepted a
representation inadequate and small in comparison to her
population, {175} much to the nation's chagrin and loss; but
everybody now admits that it was a wise and eminently necessary
step for her future prosperity. If it had not been
accomplished[9] there would have been a renewal of national wars
and border feuds, the cost of which the two kingdoms could never
have endured, and at a hazard of ultimate conquest, which, with
all her pride and bravery, the experience of the last generation
had shown to be no impossible result of the contest.
I wish, also, to recall the important fact, that Canada was
originally embraced in the plan of the American Republic, as
provided in the Articles of Confederation (XI.) as follows:
"Canada acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the
measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and
entitled to all the advantages of, this Union, but no other
colony shall be admitted into the same unless such admission be
agreed to by nine States."
The door was left wide open for her admission, but she did not
avail herself of the privilege to enter. Her actual reason for
not accepting an offer which placed her on a par with the most
prosperous colonies of England, I cannot satisfactorily
discover. I can guess, but speculation upon this point answers
no practical purpose. The anomalous fact is, however, recorded
that while the French Canadians were combating American
Independence, the French nation was aiding the Americans to
attain it. It is important to keep in sight that it {176} was
the opinion of the founders of our Government that
geographically, commercially, and naturally, Canada belonged to
the same sphere of political life in which they revolved. Indeed
it requires no strained or artificial argument to show that
Canada naturally belongs to the Union; just as naturally as the
Union belongs to Canada.
Goldwin Smith's remarks are pertinent in this connection[10]:
"Yet there is no reason why the union of the two sections of the
English-speaking people on this continent should not be as free,
as equal, and as honourable as the union of England and
Scotland. . . . When the Anglo-Saxons of England and those of
Scotland were reunited they had been many centuries apart; those
of the United States and Canada have been separated for one
century only. The Anglo-Saxons of England and Scotland had the
memory of many wars to estrange them. . . . That a union of
Canada with the American Commonwealth, like that into which
Scotland entered with England, would in itself be attended with
great advantages, cannot be questioned, whatever may be the
considerations on the other side, or the reasons for delay. It
would give to the inhabitants of the whole continent as complete
a security for peace and immunity from war taxation, as is
likely to be attained by any community or group of communities
on this side of the Millennium. Canadians, almost with one
voice, say, that it would greatly raise the value of property in
Canada; in other words, that it would bring with it a great
increase of prosperity."
From time to time, sporadic attempts have been made by Canadians
to force a sentiment in favour of annexation, but they have been
abortive. In 1847, the American flag was hoisted on the Town
Hall in Kingston, and in 1849 many prominent {177} men in
Montreal signed an annexation manifesto.[11] No widespread,
overwhelming feeling in its favour, however, has ever been
developed in Canada, or encouraged or countenanced by any
considerable number of citizens of the United States; in fact,
the latter have displayed a cold and almost unnatural
indifference to the movement, which, under the circumstances, is
remarkable. This apathy is largely due to the fact that the
subject has never been considered as a serious, vital issue. It
is now fully opened to us. That this annexation will come I have
no doubt. How, when, and under what circumstances, I will not
prophesy. I pray it may not come by force. If Canada does not
feel that she can enter into political communion with the
Americans upon terms of perfect equality, we have nothing to do
but fold our arms and accept the situation. The event ought to
come as a true and loving marriage, with a full volition on each
side, inspired by the double sentiment of mutual respect and
interest. There should not be a particle of force, or a
scintilla of commercial bribery about it. Until this moment
arrives we should be patient with each other. If sometimes we
must quarrel, remember that we pretend and proclaim ourselves to
be the most civilised and Christian people on the face of the
earth, and therefore ought to settle our disputes in a spirit of
broadness and equity, and agree with our adversary quickly.
Above and beyond this, let the Americans always {178} remember
that Canada is the weaker nation, and that true Anglo-Saxon
manhood requires that they should be generous to her, and give
her the benefit of all doubt. The more magnanimous they are, the
more tender in their treatment of Canada, the more quickly will
come the desired event—a complete and happy union. Nothing will
postpone its consummation so much as a narrow, bigoted policy
towards her.
I will not assert that I have much faith in immediate
annexation. I sincerely hope it may soon come. I fully believe
in its eventuality. In the meantime I simply bring the question
before Canadians, Americans, and Britons, but I cannot complete
this sentence by adding, "Let nature take its course." This
would mean that I thought events were not ripe; that the fruit
was green and immature. Such is not my opinion. I believe every
condition exists which makes the event feasible. I fear
postponement, because I am warned by history that men and
nations have never yet learned to control their passions at
times when they should be calm, just, and generous.
When one says, "Let nature take its course," he may also mean
that in the ordinary course of affairs arms and force may be
used, while the weapons should be those of love and agreement.
But a time may come when the Canadians and Americans, suddenly
imbued with a feeling of interest and sympathy, will voluntarily
move towards each other, and become unified through
circumstances which will make an ideal political marriage.
{179}
I recall that Lord Bacon advocated, in his own powerful and
masterly way, the union of Scotland and England more than one
hundred years before it was actually accomplished, and that
history, reason, and argument were then disregarded and cast
aside as so many straws.[12] But ideas survive. They cannot be
destroyed. And Bacon's views eventually prevailed.
If I am called visionary; if my arguments are criticised as
unsound; if my suggestions are stamped as inconclusive; if my
results are laughed at, I shall find myself, or somebody else
will find me, in most select and distinguished company; and
certainly that will furnish some compensation for the time I am
spending on this subject.
All I can do now is to sow a few seeds in this reluctant soil,
and hope that at some time they may produce ripe and wholesome
fruit. If my efforts are barren, other toilers will come in the
same field of thought, and finally events, through one cause or
another, will shape themselves into mature results, thus
realising that which nature, destiny, self-interest, and
national glory demand; the inhabitants of this North American
continent will become one people, all Anglo-Saxon by birth or
adoption—united in one free and prosperous government.
II.—COMMON CITIZENSHIP
I have now reached the crucial point of my subject: the common
citizenship; the placing of all the {180} members of the
Anglo-Saxon race on a political equality; conferring upon, them
equal civic rights in the countries and colonies which they
govern, making an Englishman a citizen of the United States and
an American a citizen of England. By a single stroke of
parliamentary and constitutional legislation the individuals
composing the Anglo-Saxon race would enjoy common political
rights, and, in fact and deed, become members of the same
political family. This would resemble the important edict of
Antoninus Caracalla, which communicated to all the free
inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the name and privileges of
Roman citizens. Professor Mommsen[13] says:
"When a stranger was by resolution of the community adopted into
the circle of the burgesses, he might surrender his previous
citizenship, in which case he passed wholly into the new
community; but he might also combine his former citizenship with
that which had just been granted to him. Such was the primitive
custom, and such it always remained in Hellas, where in later
ages the same person not infrequently held the freedom of
several communities at the same time."
There would be no force or compunction in this common
citizenship. The volition to embrace temporarily or permanently
a citizenship in any other English-speaking country would rest
with each individual. The barrier raised by the naturalisation
laws would be removed, and the citizens of any English or
American country could pass to and fro as freely as a person can
move from one room to another, invested with full civic rights
wherever {181} they should happen to be. An Englishman under the
American flag would be an American; an American under the
English flag would be an Englishman. A citizen of Great Britain
visiting the United States would, upon landing, become eo
instanti a citizen of the United States, pro hac vice,
pending the duration of his visit. He would become a citizen of
the United States with all the privileges and immunities of such
citizenship, and also a citizen of the individual State in which
he resides during his sojourn, subject, of course, to the
municipal laws and regulations of each State applicable to all
citizens in respect to length of residence and domicile; and,
per contra, a citizen of the United States visiting Great
Britain, Ireland, or Australia would, in like manner, and to the
same extent, become a citizen of England, Ireland, or Australia,
with all necessary sequences flowing from citizenship. Under
this rule, therefore, an Englishman visiting New York would have
the right to vote at a presidential or congressional election,
subject, of course, to the restrictions as to residence
applicable to all citizens of the United States, such as
residing in the State or Congressional district for a fixed
period of time anterior to the election.
In other words, without any actual or formal expatriation of his
own country on the one side, or preliminary probation,
quarantine, or naturalisation on the other, he would instantly,
upon landing in the United States, by force of law become a
citizen of the United States, subject to Federal and State
restrictions, applicable to all citizens in {182} general. The
proposition means, in effect, an abrogation of the
naturalisation laws of each country in favor of the Anglo-Saxon
people.
A citizen of Australia, visiting New York, would, upon landing,
become a citizen of the United States as long as he chose to
reside there; and a citizen of the United States visiting
Melbourne, would, in like manner, become a citizen of Australia
pending his sojourn in that country. This may be called common
or reciprocal citizenship. The Greeks termed it "Isopolity," of
which more hereafter.
I shall elaborate still further the effects of common
citizenship. For example, if this rule were adopted, a New York
lawyer would be entitled to practise law in England, as
solicitor or barrister, subject to the regulations laid down in
this respect for British subjects; it would entitle him to enter
Parliament, and, in fine, to enjoy the emoluments, ranks, and
honours of the highest English offices, except so far as he is
restrained by the Constitution of the United States, which would
necessarily be altered to conform to the principles of the
treaty in question.
On the other hand, a citizen of Dublin, eo instanti: upon
landing in New York, would be entitled to all the prerogatives
of American citizenship, and to all the offices and honours
which that relation may lead to, save that of President, which
can only be enjoyed by a native-born citizen of the United
States. But without an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, a citizen of Great Britain, temporarily enjoying
the rights of American {183} citizenship, as proposed, could not
immediately become a member of Congress, for by Subdivision 2 of
Section 2, Article I. of the Constitution of the United States,
it is provided that:
"No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained
the age of twenty-five years, and have been seven years a
citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected,
be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen";
and by Subdivision 3, of Section 3, of the same Article, it is
also declared that:
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained 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."
While the English Parliament, by a single act, could authorise a
treaty which would carry into effect all the propositions above
stated, to make the benefits of common citizenship reciprocal
and equal it would be necessary on our side to amend the
Constitution of the United States.
If the principle was acquiesced in, the lawyers would soon put
these suggestions into practical shape.
There are two classes of rights which would follow the
establishment of common citizenship, viz., civil and political.
The civil rights, inter alia, would be these:
1. An Isopolite would enjoy the same rights to real estate as a
native-born citizen, such as buying, {184} selling, trading in,
or disposing of the same by will; and the slender thread and
fragment of the alien laws still remaining in the United States,
so far as they apply to citizens whose respective Governments
are parties to the treaty, would necessarily disappear.
2. He would possess the same commercial rights and privileges of
business as a native-born citizen.
3. He would enjoy the same material rights and privileges and be
subject to the same limitations and duties as pertain to
native-born citizens.
His political rights, among others, would be:
1. He would be entitled to vote at all Federal elections.
2. The right to vote at all State, county, or municipal
elections, precisely the same as citizens of one of the States
of the United States.
But while enjoying the same rights, he would be under the same
disabilities, and be subject to the performance of the same
duties as a citizen of the United States, as, for instance, to
pay taxes, and to perform military or jury duty. If war should
unhappily arise between the two nations, it must be admitted
that all these rights would be rent asunder. Inter armes silent
leges. But would not common citizenship be a most effectual
barrier against war? And with Canada in the American Union,
would not war, or even ugly disputes, be remote possibilities?
The principle of common citizenship is not novel; on the
contrary, it is very ancient. Something {185} like it existed in
the Grecian states, which, in establishing a federal union among
themselves, interchanged civic rights comprehended by the Greek
word "Isopolity," There was also "Sympolity," which meant in
effect the protection which a larger or stronger State gave to a
smaller or weaker one,
In the "Byzantine Decree,"[14] it is inter alia provided:
"It is resolved by the people of the Byzantium and Perin thus to
grant unto the Athenians the right of inter-marriage,
citizenship, purchase of land and houses, the first seat at the
games, first admission to the Council and People after the
Sacrifices, and exemption from all public services to such as
wish to reside in the City," and this because "they succoured us
. . . and rescued us from grievous perils and preserved our
hereditary constitution, our laws, and sepulchres,'"
"Isopolity," according to Niebuhr,[15] was a relation entered
into by treaty between two perfectly equal and independent
cities, mutually securing all those privileges to their
citizens which a resident alien could not exercise at all, or
only through the medium of a guardian; the rights of
intermarriage, of purchasing landed property, of making
contracts of every kind, of suing and being sued in person, of
being exempted from taxes where citizens were so; and also
partaking in sacrifices and festivals,
The Cosmos[16] is allowed to enter the senate {186} house of
the allied city that he may be able to propound the business of
his state there; and as a mark of honour he has a seat in the
popular assembly by the side of the magistracy, but without a
vote.
The persons who enjoyed "Isopolity" were called "Isopolites."
This idea of Isopolity existed in some essential features among
the Romans, for "between the Romans and Latins, and between the
Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement: that any
citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the other,
might, forthwith, be able to exercise there the rights of a
citizen."[17]
The other relation, known as "Sympolity," subsisted between Rome
and its municipia: it was the connection of one place with
another on a footing of inequality; the citizens of the
subordinate state had not the same rights as those of the chief
state, their advantage consisting in the close alliance with a
powerful head, for protection, but they had no share in the
election of magistrates (civitas sine suffragio), and the
relation was altogether one-sided. Isopolite states, on the
other hand, generally stood to each other in a relation of
perfect equality, and were quite independent in their
transactions with foreign countries.[18]
The Greeks learned the lesson too late in their national
experience of the evils of political isolation {187} where
nature intended there should be no isolation. The one idea in
which that wonderful people were deficient was political unity.
Each city was a separate entity and proud of being such. The
dividing causes were many and strong. Isopolity and the like
were indications of an underlying sense of a better principle.
The great Pericles caused a law to be passed restricting the
citizenship to those only whose parents were both Athenian—a
law which afterwards he sought to have repealed so far as to
exempt a son of his own.[19]
When foreigners became frequent in Athens, a public vote of the
people was necessary, in each instance, to bestow citizenship.
If that could not be obtained, some form of evasion of the law
was resorted to.[20]
The policy of the Greeks in the above respects was in direct
contrast to that of the Romans. When their dominion became
assured, the latter welcomed into their *** all allies and
conquered peoples. The Greeks, it is true, when it was too late,
driven by necessity, formed the Achaian League, which would have
been real and efficacious, had not the power of Macedonia,
against which it was first directed, proved too strong for the
liberties of their country.
These pages of classic history have not escaped the attention of
modern scholars and publicists, and I am not alone in seeking to
apply ancient examples to existing conditions.
{188}
Professor Freeman[21] uttered a hope in 1885 that some day
common citizenship would be established between the
English-speaking nations.
"I have often dreamed that something like the Greek συμπολιτεία
a power in the citizens in each country of taking up the
citizenship of the other at pleasure, might not be beyond hope,
but I have never ventured even to dream of more than that. It is
our bad luck at present that there are only two independent
English nations, two English nations which parted in anger, and
neither of which has quite got over the unpleasant circumstances
of parting."
And the same proposition of a common citizenship was advocated
by Professor Dicey in 1897.[22] He stated that his
"aim is to establish the possibility and advocate the policy of
instituting a common citizenship for all Englishmen and
Americans. My proposal is summarily this: That England and the
United States should, by concurrent and appropriate legislation,
create such a common citizenship, or, to put the matter in a
more concrete and therefore in a more intelligible form, that an
act of the Imperial Parliament should make every citizen of the
United States, during the continuance of peace between England
and America, a British subject, and that simultaneously an Act
of Congress should make every British subject, during the
continuance of such peace, a citizen of the United States."[23]
Mr. Bryce also suggested the same course[24]: "There are things
which may be done at once to cement {189} and perpetuate the
good relations which happily prevail . . . such as the
recognition of a common citizenship, securing to the citizens of
each in the country of the other certain rights not enjoyed by
other foreigners."
While common citizenship would not affect in the least the
political form or substance of the government of either country,
the result of its adoption would practically make the
English-speaking people, so far as the outside world is
concerned, one nation, inspired by one great, noble purpose. And
the ebb and flow of citizens from one country to the other could
not fail to be beneficial in its influence upon the internal and
external policy of each.
It will have been observed that in what I have heretofore said I
have carefully eschewed the use of the word "alliance," This
word conveys the impression of a written or defined compact
between separate nations for an offensive or defensive purpose,
as, for example, the "Triple Alliance," the "Franco-Russian
Alliance." I wish to exclude utterly such an idea and keep it
altogether out of view. Nothing is more distasteful to my
feelings or farther from my thoughts than an alliance of the
Anglo-Saxon race to browbeat or bully the world. While the
suggestions I make must necessarily be carried into effect by a
preliminary treaty, and while incidentally the contracting
parties will be benefited, its great object is to establish and
maintain universal peace. It seeks to unite the people.
If Canada becomes a part of the United States, {190} the
Canadians can possess all the rights of English citizenship when
they chose to seek them by visiting any of the countries
embraced in the British Empire—a privilege which they do not
now enjoy. And vice versa, Englishmen can become citizens of
any of the Canadian Provinces by simply landing on their soil.
Englishmen and Canadians are now, inconsistently enough,
political strangers to each other, but by an instantaneous
operation of law they can, by their own volition, become
fellow-citizens.
And will not the alleged grievances of the Irish roll away and
disappear, like the burdens of Christian, in the Slough of
Despond, before common citizenship? Will not the whole
Anglo-Saxon race be practically united for the propagation of
peace and civilisation? Will not the effect of common
citizenship be to establish and enforce common rules of liberty
and equality if, and where, they do not now already exist?
Maintaining intact the peculiar governments which they now
individually enjoy, will not the citizens of each feel that they
are henceforth all interested in the welfare and glory of the
whole race, and in the development of a common purpose? Will not
a generous rivalry stimulate each to outdo the other in the
breadth and liberality of their laws?
I shall say a word, in this connection, on the general subject
of naturalisation laws, the abrogation of which I recommend in
favour of our own kinsmen. A most superficial inspection of the
history of the world will show that every nation has {191}
guarded from motives of pride, jealousy, or fear, the privilege
of citizenship. The general policy has been to confine it to
those born and bred on the soil, and not to permit the outside
world, or foreigners, to become members of the State. Exceptions
were necessarily made to this universal rule, but they were
rare. A nation, in respect to citizenship, was looked upon as a
family, and strangers were not admitted to the fold. These
observations are not simply applicable to ancient States, but
the same rule existed, and exists, in modern governments.
It is a fact worthy to be chronicled to its credit, that the
United States was the first nation to throw open its doors to
foreigners, and invite all persons to become members of its
political family. Our ancestors settled in North America to
establish and perpetuate civil and religious liberty, and all
who were in search of these blessings and new homes were
welcomed to its hospitable shores. Instead of being jealous of
our citizenship, we were delighted to welcome all classes to our
country, and to confer upon them full and equal civic rights. We
wanted company, and our newly arrived guests shared to the full
in everything we could consistently give in property and
citizenship.
Behold the results! They are seen to-day in our social life.
Wherever we have a place, a foreigner can find a cheery and
sincere welcome. This custom, coeval with our national birth,
has grown and developed until the Americans are acclaimed the
most hospitable people on the face of the earth. {192} None are
equal to them as hosts. After our independence, there was an
apprehension that foreigners might come here, and, with evil
intent, propagate principles contrary to our political tenets.
Accordingly, in the Constitution, Congress was given the power
to make uniform naturalisation laws. Under this authority, the
first Naturalisation Act was passed early in the nineteenth
century. A quarantine was established to enable the foreigner to
acquire our language and to become accustomed to our Government.
Having passed the necessary probation, the naturalised foreigner
is admitted to the fullest rank of citizenship, and there is no
office or honour closed to him save one—the Presidency of the
United States. Compare our policy, in this respect, with that of
other nations, to see whether my eulogy is deserved.
We come, now, to solve the problem of a common citizenship for
every member of the Anglo-Saxon race. Who but the American
people can make such a proposition? Who but we are entitled to
lead in such a movement? Where should such an invitation come
from, but from the United States of America, and to whom should
it be extended but to the members of our own family—to
Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Australians?
What are the objections to a curtailment, or an abolition, of
the naturalisation laws, so far as the English-speaking people
are concerned? This is practically all that is meant by common
citizenship. Is it essential, or necessary, to the maintenance
of any principle or policy of our Government, or of {193}
national safety, that there should be a probation of five
years, before an Irishman, or an Englishman, could become a
citizen of the Republic of the United States of America? I
propound the same question to the English in favour of the
Americans.
What was the object sought to be accomplished by the
naturalisation laws? To establish and compel a probation while
the immigrating foreigner was learning to speak our language,
and becoming familiarised with the form of our Government. In
these enlightened days, when almost every member of the
Anglo-Saxon race can speak, read, and write English, is this
limit of five years any longer efficacious or necessary? In the
early days of our Republic, as can be seen by a perusal of the
debates in the Constitutional Convention, much anxiety was felt
and expressed upon the subject of admitting foreigners to
citizenship. It was thought they would bring into our midst and
propagate political ideas quite foreign and antagonistic to the
principles of a republic, and hence were adopted the
restrictions of seven and nine years in the Constitution,
relating to the election of foreigners to the House of
Representatives and to the Senate. But these influences are now
effectually guarded against by virtue of the overwhelming
domination of American-born subjects; and it is very doubtful
whether any of the reasons which led to the adoption of a five
years' residence preliminary to citizenship now exist. Cessat
ratione cessat lex. Open wide our doors to the Anglo-Saxon
race, whether they come from England, {194} Ireland, Australia,
or New Zealand. Welcome them not as aliens, but as political
brothers and fellow-citizens.
I do not overlook the fact that there is an existing, not to say
a strong, sentiment in the United States against foreign
immigration. This feeling is based upon the necessity of
protecting American labour. It is thought by some that the
country, great and capacious as it is, is already overcrowded,
and that, for a few years at least, until further development of
its resources are made, and new fields of business, commerce,
agriculture, and labour are opened, immigration should be
curtailed, suspended, or even prohibited. If this objection had
any relevancy to the present discussion, it is squarely answered
by the fact that it has never been used to prevent the inflow of
the English-speaking people. The sentiment against further
immigration, or restricted immigration, is not, if I understand
the subject correctly, aimed against those immigrants who come
from English-speaking countries. No one, so far as I can learn,
has raised his voice against this class of immigrants becoming
citizens of the United States under proper conditions. The
objection is especially directed against the Chinese, who might,
if any encouragement were given them, no matter how slight,
overrun the country and soon swamp the labouring classes—an
eventuality which should be guarded against. In this respect it
is unnecessary to advocate the removal of any of the barriers
which now exist.
{195}
I admit, also, that the same feeling, but in a milder form,
exists against a class of foreigners who do not speak the
English language. But as to the English-speaking races, if the
citizens of the United States are admitted to a common
citizenship in Great Britain and her colonies, I cannot conceive
why we on this side should hesitate to grant a reciprocal
privilege. Do we not all instinctively feel the difference?
Mongolians and foreigners of other nationalities in the one
case; English, Americans, Scotch, and Irish in the other—nature
draws the line for us.
Again, if Canada becomes an integral part of our Republican
system, her vast and comparatively unexplored soil will at once
be opened to the energy and activity of American skill, genius,
and labour, and superfluous immigrants to the United States
would be welcomed there, and soon absorbed in her vast
territory. On the whole, I do not think the United States or
Canada, perhaps the two nations more particularly interested in
the subject, could suffer any disadvantage by removing, at a
single stroke, all barriers which now prevent the citizens of
England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all the other
English-speaking colonies, from becoming citizens, pro hac
vice, of these countries, instantly upon the adoption of a
common citizenship law. After all, as I have said, the whole
question resolves itself into a conditional or limited
curtailment of the naturalisation laws. These have never been
uniform; but have been fluctuating and capricious—adapted to
meet existing conditions.
{196}
The laxity which has existed in the enforcement of these
naturalisation laws is notorious, and has enabled all
individuals so disposed to become members of our Republic by
open evasion. The applications for citizenship now mainly come
from the non-English-speaking people. The number of
English-speaking immigrants is growing less every year, and
Ireland and England will soon be drained. It is time this human
current should be turned. There should be an ebb and flow
between the English-speaking countries.
Another objection may be that the inauguration of common
citizenship would open the door to fraudulent voting, by
bringing hordes of people to this country on the eve of
national, state, or municipal elections, to corrupt our ballot.
There is, however, no force in this objection, because under the
rules applicable to citizens of the United States, a voter must
reside in the State where he casts his vote at least one year,
and in the election district for a period ranging from thirty
days to four months previous to the election. It is not probable
that any political party or organisation could control a
sufficient amount of money or exercise a strong enough influence
upon immigrants by "colonisation," to control a question of
national, state, or municipal importance. It is, moreover, a
sword that cuts both ways, and affects all the countries
involved, because what could be done in New York would be
equally easy in London, Dublin, or in any of the colonies where
an election might be held.
{197}
But strenuous objection might be urged by foreigners to the
doctrine of a common citizenship embracing only the citizens and
subjects of the English-speaking countries. Is it just and right
to discriminate against non-English-speaking nations—against
Russians, Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, and Austrians, who
have contributed so largely to our population and to the
development of our national resources? The obvious answer is,
that we cannot consult foreigners, or foreign nations, in
shaping the policy of our Government. It does not become them to
say what the British Empire or the United States shall do in the
establishment of relations with each other. These foreigners are
attracted to our shores by the allurements of our political
institutions and the prospects of fortune and success. Welcome
and receive them all under proper restrictions; but let them
have nothing to do with our Government until they become
citizens thereof.
In the next place, it does not lie in the mouth of any foreign
nation to object to any treaty which the United States and Great
Britain may choose to make. When nations enter into treaties,
there is no principle of international or natural law, or
justice, which requires the contracting parties to consult
foreign nations as to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Each nation is a free agent, possessing absolute liberty and
power to enter into any alliance which is deemed to be for its
best interests, security, or progress, subject only to an
arraignment before the high bar of a general {198} public
opinion where treaties and alliances are discussed upon the
broad principles of truth and justice. It would no more lie in
the mouth of Austria, Germany, or Italy, to find fault with a
treaty made between Great Britain and the United States,
adopting a common citizenship, as explained above, than it would
be tolerated that Great Britain or the United States should
object to the triple alliance which was made between Austria,
Italy, and Germany, by Bismarck at the conclusion of the
Franco-Prussian War for their mutual protection and support.
When nations are entering into alliances they do not call into
their councils foreign powers not directly concerned in the
compact. But I do not rest the discussion upon any narrow or
technical basis.
A treaty between Great Britain and the United States upon the
lines heretofore indicated, is absolutely sustainable in the
forum of conscience and justice, and it is an ample answer to
any criticism which might be made of it, by a foreign power, to
show that the basis of the treaty is self-preservation and
interest, quite irrespective of that other unanswerable ground
in international discussion, viz., that the aim and object of
the treaty is the maintenance of universal peace.
Lastly, if there was any real and substantial objection to such
a treaty on the ground that foreigners were excepted from the
privileges of common citizenship, it might be provided that all
such could immediately become English-American citizens, when
they declared their intention to {199} establish a permanent
home in either Great Britain, the United States, Canada,
Australia, or any of the colonies embraced in the treaty, and
were able to speak, read, and write the English language. To
this extent our naturalisation laws might be modified in favour
of foreigners.
As one of the aims of this alliance would be to offer a home and
citizenship to all persons who desired to embrace an
English-American Nationality, there could be no objection to
opening wide the doors to a class of immigrants such as those
just referred to. This exception would be politic, and agreeable
to one of the ultimate designs and motives of the treaty, viz.,
the propagation of the English language, as it would both
operate as an incentive to induce foreigners to study and
acquire the same, and fit themselves for eventual
English-American citizenship. If the immigrants did not bring
themselves within these conditions, there would seem to be no
reason why the old laws of naturalisation should not be kept in
full force.
The effect and result of a common citizenship in the
English-speaking countries would be great and far reaching.
To-day, the assertion, "I am an American," or, "I am an
Englishman," is a passport securing safety and respect of person
and property everywhere within the four quarters of the globe.
How incomparably greater, more forcible, and striking the
assertion would be, if a common citizenship were established
such as I have above suggested! How talismanic such an
utterance! In his oration against Verres, with what force and
pride did {200} Cicero dwell upon the magical power and effect
of the words, "I am a Roman citizen"[25]
Men of no means, he said, holding no office or station in public
or private life, poor or friendless, at sea, or in places where
they were neither known to men among whom they had arrived, or
able to find people to vouch for them, by uttering the mere
phrase "I am a Roman," received protection from the laws, and
shared the rights of hospitality to an extent not common to the
citizens of other nations.
Besides, common citizenship would tend to restore the office of
a citizen to its high and elevated sphere. It would produce
"fitness," which, after all, is the quality to be sought for in
the true citizen. While in times of war or dispute, the pride of
country is fully aroused and exercises a marked influence upon
its citizens, yet in the intervals of peace the real duties of
citizenship are overlooked or disregarded. Shall we recall what
these duties are, and the nature of the office of a citizen? In
most respects this office is the highest that exists in any
civilised government. Why? Because the government is established
for his benefit. All the officers of the government are the
agents of the citizens. The government is made for man, not man
for the government, as Mr. Webster said. Public officers are
trustees for the citizens, who are the cestuis que
trustent—the beneficiaries. An individual born in a country
becomes, so to speak, a citizen thereof by operation of law.
There is no ceremony of investiture-no {201} signing of a
constitution—no oath—nothing to acquaint him with his duties,
or to impress upon him the full measure of his responsibility.
He becomes a citizen so naturally and imperceptibly that he
often belittles the office, or fails to see its importance, or
to understand the full measure and magnitude of his rights and
duties. In a representative government the citizen surrenders
his office to a representative and is removed far from the
scenes of official action. He only participates in the
government of the state, and in the making of laws, by proxy. In
this respect the difference between a true democracy and a
federated republic or constitutional monarchy is manifest. In
the former, the citizens all actively participate in the making
of laws; in the latter they are generally absent when
legislation is enacted, and only appear by their representative.
In a true democracy each citizen must take an active interest in
every question that arises, because he is present and
participating in all political discussions; in a federal
republic, he knows very little of what is transpiring, for he
has transferred his duties to a representative. In the former
case the importance and responsibilities of citizenship are
vividly impressed upon the democrat; in the latter these duties
are unknown or neglected, and the burden thrown upon the proxy.
The closer citizens are brought to legislation, the better
government there will be. Do we not notice the distinction
between our national and municipal politics? In the former
sphere the citizens study, know, and act upon {202} political
questions. In the cities they do neither; and public interests
are placed in the hands of professional politicians who act
often from base and sordid motives. Common citizenship will tend
to elevate and enlighten all the citizens, and the healthful
influences resulting therefrom will gradually permeate into the
manners, morals, and legislation of all the countries involved.
III.—TO ESTABLISH FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE AND
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES INVOLVED, TO THE SAME EXTENT AS
THAT WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT STATES CONSTITUTING THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
It would be quite useless to create common citizenship, it would
be a vain endeavour to form a lasting union between the
English-speaking people, unless free and unrestricted commercial
relations were established between them. Every port which they
own or control must always be wide open to the citizens of each
nation. The same liberal commercial relations must be permitted
between the United States and the British Empire as now exist
under the Constitution between the citizens of different States
of the Union.
Montesquieu says that commerce is a cure for the most
destructive prejudices, and that peace is the natural result of
trade.
We can behold its successful and beneficent effect upon the
States of our American Union. We witness the disastrous
influence of restricted {203} trade relations between Canada and
the United States.
These two examples cover the whole field of discussion and
render elaboration useless. Each American State has grown and
thrived under the principle of free commerce. It regulates
production and sale, and confines the inhabitants of each
section to the cultivation or manufacture of those articles
which surrounding conditions justify; it limits and attaches
them to that industry which is most congenial and profitable. To
the restless, discontented, unlucky, or unfortunate classes—of
which there are always plenty—there is the chance to go
elsewhere, a door always open through which they can pass into
another State under the same citizenship, where different
pursuits are followed more in keeping with their tastes and
knowledge. A floating population, drifting from one place to
another with perfect freedom and security, will finally settle
in some locality where they can make use of whatever knowledge
they possess, with a direct benefit to themselves and the place
where they ultimately settle.
Lord Bacon saw the importance of commercial freedom in welding
the bonds between England and Scotland, using the argument with
skill and force in his advocacy for union between them:
"Thirdly, for so much as the principal degree to union is
communion and participation of mutual commodities and benefits,
it appeared to us to follow next in order that the commerce
between both nations be set open and free, so as the commodities
and provisions of either may pass and flow to {204} and fro
without any stops or obstructions into the veins of the whole
body, for the better sustentation and comfort of all the parts,
with caution, nevertheless, that the vital nourishment be not so
drawn into one part as it may endanger a consumption and
withering of the other."[26]
And it was in the spirit of this advice that the union was, long
afterwards, formed. It was the offer of free trade tendered by
the Godolphin administration which finally overcame the national
prejudices of the Scottish people. The results, after a brief
period of adjustment to new conditions, amply justified the
wisdom of the forecast: it is not necessary that I should again
state them. To those who recall the former relations of the two
countries as they had existed for centuries, they will appear
among the most marvellous recorded in history.
It will not be necessary here to cite authorities. I am not
dealing with an open question. The value of commerce, which,
unless it is free, ceases to be commerce, in regulating the
intercourse between nations, in promoting peace, in carrying
forward the work of civilisation, has been recognised by every
thinker and every philanthropist in every age since the world
emerged from pure barbarism.
It was the full realisation of this truth and necessity that
drove the thirteen original States into forming a federative
union, quite as much as political reasons. The same causes
operated upon the Canadians in their federative union, and they
must be predominant features in the formation of the {205}
political ligament which binds the English-speaking peoples in a
perpetual league.
There are two unmistakable and substantial benefits which result
from commercial reciprocity: first, joint business interests
represented by men of both countries have a direct tendency to
mutual understandings in the individuals; second, in the
governments, as giving them objects of common protection and
support.
How quickly these benefits will be realised in the union of the
English-speaking peoples must be most obvious to all of us in
the light of our present and past history.
IV.—GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES (I) TO COIN GOLD,
SILVER, NICKEL AND COPPER MONEY, NOT DISPLAYING THE SAME DEVICES
OR MOTTOES, BUT POSSESSING AN EQUAL MONEY VALUE, AND
INTERCHANGEABLE EVERYWHERE WITHIN THE LIMITS COVERED BY THE
TREATY, AND (2) TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES
I. The same Gold, Silver, Nickel and Copper Money
The influence of a uniform standard of money upon a people in
uniting them is most obvious. In fact, I know of no stronger
element to educate a people in political and commercial sympathy
than the use of interchangeable coins, possessing an equal money
value, and circulating freely among them—money, bearing the
same name for each denomination, with different national designs
on the obverse side, but perhaps similar characters and figures
could be used on the reverse side.
{206}
The adoption of coins of the same value among all the
Anglo-Saxon peoples would be perhaps next in importance to
language and literature in binding them firmly together.
An element conspicuously noticed in the nationalisation or
unification of different nations or tribes is a common
money-system. Mommsen[27] in speaking of the unification of
Italy by Rome, says:
"Lastly, Rome, as head of the Romano-Italian confederacy, not
only entered into the Hellenistic state-system, but also
conformed to the Hellenic system of moneys and coins. Up to this
time the different communities of northern and central Italy,
with few exceptions, had struck only a copper currency; the
south Italian towns again universally had a currency of silver,
and there were as many legal standards and systems of coinage as
there were sovereign communities in Italy. In 485 all these
local mints were restricted to the issuing of small coin; a
general standard of currency applicable to all Italy was
introduced and the coining of the currency was centralised in
Rome; Capua alone continued to retain its own silver coinage
struck in the name of Rome, but after a different standard."
I do not make any definite suggestion as to the size, design, or
names of the different species of coins. This is not the place
for such details.
Canada has already made an important step in this direction. She
has freely followed the United States of America in her silver
coins, which, with the exception of the inscriptions, are
practically the same as those issued by our own Government—she
has her half-dollars, twenty-five-, ten-, and five-cent
pieces.[27]
{207}
II.—To establish a uniform standard of Weights and Measures
Quite apart from the plan heretofore outlined, it is highly
important as an element of mutual commercial benefit that the
English-speaking people should establish among themselves a
uniform standard of weights and measures. It would facilitate
and make easy commercial freedom, and guarantee to our race that
an entente, if established, would be built upon sound
foundations. It would likewise impress upon foreign nations the
strength of our compact. Once we have adopted a common monetary
system, supplemented it with a uniform standard of weights and
measures, and carried into effect the other suggestions
heretofore advocated, the union of the English-speaking people
is a fait accompli. Thus the two richest and most powerful
nations of the world would be knit together by all the elements
of sentiment and selfishness, and their moral force and
influence would be predominating.
V.—IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE HEREAFTER OCCURRING BETWEEN GREAT
BRITAIN, OR ANY OF HER COLONIES, AND THE UNITED STATES, THE SAME
TO BE REFERRED TO A SUPREME COURT OF ARBITRATION TO BE CREATED
AND ORGANISED UPON SUBSTANTIALLY THE FOLLOWING LINES:
(a) All disputes between the signatories to be referred to,
and settled by, this tribunal.
(b) The court to be composed of twelve arbitrators, as
follows: Six to be selected by England and the same number by
the United States.
{208}
The King of England to appoint the Chancellor of England, a
member of the House of Lords, a member of the House of Commons,
a banker, a merchant, and the president or chairman of the
leading industrial or labour organisation of the empire. The
President of the United States to choose a judge of the Supreme
Court of the United States, a member of the United States
Senate, a member of the House of Representatives, a banker, a
merchant, and the president or chairman of the leading
industrial or labour organisation of the United States.
(c) The first meeting of the arbitrators to be held, say,
within ninety days after their appointment.
(d) At their first meeting, without regard to whether any
quarrel or dispute has arisen to be submitted to them, to select
an umpire, who shall cast the final vote in case of a tie.
By selecting an umpire in the beginning, the Arbitration Court
is fully organised and always ready to act. After a dispute has
arisen the choice of an umpire becomes most delicate and
difficult and sometimes insuperable.
[1] History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii., p.
50.
[2] Thucydides (Jowett), 2nd ed., vol. i., p. 242.
[3] Freeman, History of Federal Government in Greece and
Italy, 2d ed., p. 42 et seq.
[4] Ibid., p. 43.
[5] From "Principes des Negociacions," par l'Abbé de Mably, the
Federalist, No. VI., Lodge's Ed., p. 32.
[6] As illustrating these views I quote from an interview
published in the New York Herald of Sunday, June 15, 1902,
with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada, before
leaving for London, to attend the coronation ceremonies and the
conference of Colonial Premiers, as follows: "The most important
question just now, as affecting the relations and friendly
feeling existing between Canada and the United States, is the
Alaska boundary question. This situation is full of danger, and
all that is required to precipitate a disgraceful conflict is
the discovery of gold in the disputed territory." This
difficulty has happily been arranged by treaty and the question
left to six arbitrators, but at the present writing Canada
newspapers are urging strenuous objections against two of the
American arbitrators.
[7] Froude's History of England, vol. vii.. p. 101.
[8] Hume's History of England, vol. iv., p. 251.
[9] See Hallam's Const. Hist. of England, vol. iii., p. 325.
[10] Canada and the Canadian Question, p. 267 et seq.
[11] "Commercial Relations between Canada and the United
States," by Robert McConnell, Canadian Magazine, January,
1889.
[12] "Tracts Relating to Scotland," Lord Bacon's Works, vol.
v., edited by Basil Montagu.
[13] History of Rome, vol. i., p. 88, Dickens's edition, 1894.
[14] Fully set forth in Demosthenes's Oration on the Crown,
Bohn's Classical Library, p. 39.
[15] History of Rome, vol. ii., p. 51.
[16] Ibid., p. 52.
[17] Niebuhr's Lecture on the History of Rome, vol. i., p. 125.
[18] Niebuhr's Lectures on Ethnography and Geography, vol. i.,
p. 141.
[19] Vide Plutarch's, Pericles.
[20] Grote, vol. iv., p. 186.
[21] Freeman's Greater Greece and Greater Britain, Appendix,
p. 142.
[22] Contemporary Review, April, 1897.
[23] This learned author subsequently lamented (Atlantic
Monthly, October, 1898), that his proposal "fell flat. It was
inopportune. It excited no attention in England, though it
brought me a few friendly letters from the United States. But
the tone of my correspondence was not encouraging."
[24] Atlantic Monthly, July, 1898.
[25] Cicero's Orations, vol. i., Bohn's Ed., p. 534 et seq.
[26] Certificate prepared by Lord Bacon upon the proposed union
of England and Scotland.—Lord Bacon's Works, vol. v., p. 43.
[26] Vol. ii., p. 87.
[27] See also in this connection extracts from A History of
Currency in the British Colonies, by Robert Chalmers, B.A., of
Oriel College and of her Majesty's Treasury.
{209}
CONCLUSION
THE STATE OF PUBLIC OPINION UPON THE QUESTION OF ANGLO-SAXON
ALLIANCE
BEFORE the Spanish-American War a discussion of the subjects
embraced in this book would have been premature. Professor
Dicey, appealing through a magazine article, in April, 1897
(hereafter quoted), for a "common citizenship" for all
Englishmen and Americans, was compelled to acknowledge a year
later that his proposal "fell flat," and that for his
disinterested efforts he received a few friendly but
discouraging letters!
The times have changed, and the buds of great political and
international questions, which have hung so long upon the trees
of history, green and immature, have suddenly ripened.
The Spanish War peeped "through the blanket of the dark" and
luminously lit up the American nation to the gaze of an
astonished world. The problem which agitates the powers and the
press of continental Europe is the future of the so-called
"Anglo-Saxon" race, and the necessity and possibility of
combining the nations of the world against it.
{210}
The immature subject of an English-American alliance, which a
few years ago could not awaken the interest of the people of the
two nations, and was looked upon as an impracticable theory of
visionary men, is now become momentous by reason of grim facts.
The courage and boldness which a writer must possess to open to
public gaze new and untrodden fields of thought are no longer
indispensable qualities to the present task. All that is now
required is a substantial and satisfactory method of
accomplishing the desired end.
It is interesting, if not essential, to explore the state of
public opinion upon this subject. How far has public thought
progressed in this direction? What view is entertained of it by
the four great organs of public opinion of the two nations: the
Press, the Pulpit, the Bar, the Stage?
Notwithstanding a somewhat diligent search for all literature
bearing upon the subject, I have doubtless overlooked many,
perhaps some of the best, contributions. From most of those I
have seen, I will now give extracts. The newspaper articles it
is impossible to quote from—they are too numerous. Besides,
quotations from them in most cases would be unjust and
unsatisfactory.
The Press of England and the United States has only treated this
great question in a desultory and superficial way, because there
has been no definite question before the two nations for
discussion. So far as I can judge, however, a fair majority of
the newspapers favour the general suggestion of a {211} "closer
bond of sympathy," a "better understanding," and an utter
renunciation of an appeal to arms to settle disputes between the
United States and Great Britain. How these things will be
accomplished they do not consider, except that a majority of the
newspapers favour the adoption of an arbitration treaty.
The Bar, yet representing, shall I say, the serious, sober, best
thought of the two nations, takes no combined action upon public
questions. Its organisation, so far as matters are involved
which do not directly affect its members or its esprit du
corps, is merely formal. Its views can be gathered from
individual sources only, and from articles which individual
members contribute to the literature of the day. Those I have
found and quote from, favour an alliance.
The Pulpit has been outspoken and enthusiastic from the
commencement in its advocacy of an alliance.
The Stage, always ready to catch the sentiments of the hour,
has, with its usual aptness and scenic skill, entwined England
and the United States together in friendly embrace; and
grotesque and exaggerated allusions to a coalition "to whip all
the world," have been liberally and vociferously applauded.
I now give the quotations promiscuously. The italics are my own.
They are made to show the very gist of the author's opinion.
The first article that came under my notice is, strangely
enough, the most definite in its purpose {212} and conclusion,
and was published in April, 1897, by Professor Dicey, under the
title of "A Common Citizenship for the English Races."[1]
Professor Dicey states that his "aim is to establish the
possibility and advocate the policy of instituting a common
citizenship for all Englishmen and Americans." He says:
"My proposal is summarily this: That England and the United
States should, by concurrent and appropriate legislation, create
such a common citizenship, or, to put the matter in a more
concrete and therefore in a more intelligible form, that an act
of the Imperial Parliament should make every citizen of the
United States, during the continuance of peace between England
and America, a British subject, and that simultaneously an act
of Congress should make every British subject, during the
continuance of such peace, a citizen of the United States. . . .
"Common citizenship, or isopolity, has no necessary connection
whatever with national or political unity. My proposal is not
designed to limit the complete national independence either of
England or of the United States. It would be not only an
absurdity, but almost an act of lunacy, to devise or defend a
scheme for turning England and America into one state. It is as
impossible, as, were it possible, it would be undesirable, that
Washington should be ruled by a government in London, or that
London should be ruled by a government in Washington.
". . . What my proposal does aim at is, in short, not political
unity, but, in strictness, common citizenship. Were it carried
into effect, the net result would be that every American citizen
would, on landing at Liverpool, possess the same civil and
political rights as would, say, an inhabitant of Victoria who
landed at the same moment from the same boat; and that an
Englishman who stepped for the first time on American soil would
possess there all the civil and political rights which would
necessarily belong to an American citizen who, having been born
abroad, had for the first time entered the United States."
{213}
Mr. James Bryce, in an article favouring any proper means to
establish an alliance between the two countries, says[2]:
"Meantime there are things which may be done at once to cement
and perpetuate the good relations which happily prevail. One is
the conclusion of a general arbitration treaty providing for the
amicable settlement of all differences which may hereafter arise
between the nations. Another is the agreement to render services
to each other; such, for instance, as giving to a citizen of
either nation the right to invoke the good offices of the
diplomatic or consular representatives of the other in a place
where his own government has no representative; or [following
the proposition of Professor Dicey, heretofore referred to]
such as the recognition of a common citizenship, securing to
the citizens of each in the country of the other, certain rights
not enjoyed by other foreigners."
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, England's Secretary for the Colonies,[3]
states his views upon the subject as follows:
"So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it may be taken as a
fact that the British nation would welcome any approach to this
conclusion, that there is hardly any length to which they would
not go in response to American advances, and that they would
not shrink even from an alliance contra mundum, if the need
should ever arise, in defence of the ideals of the Anglo-Saxon
race—of humanity, justice, freedom, and equality of
opportunity.
"It must not be supposed, however, that in accepting an alliance
as a possible and welcome contingency, anything in the nature
of a permanent or general alliance is either desirable or
practicable.
"Any attempt to pledge the two nations beforehand to combine
defensive and offensive action in all circumstances must {214}
inevitably break down and be a source of danger instead of
strength. All therefore that the most sanguine advocate of an
alliance can contemplate is that the United States and Great
Britain should keep in close touch with each other, and that
whenever their policy and their interests are identical they
should be prepared to concert together the necessary measures
for their defence.
"It is to such a course of action that Washington seems to point
when he says: 'Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable
establishments, in a respectable defensive posture, we may
safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies.'"
Walter Charles Copeland, favouring the proposed Anglo-American
Alliance, says:
"Nor ought we to remain satisfied with the moral alliance which
is, and always will be, and probably always would have been,
formed at a Pinch between the branches of the Anglo-Saxon race.
True, it may be considered by our statesmen in their wisdom that
the common interest will be served best by a secret alliance, or
a more subtle understanding. Anyway, there is ample scope for
the work of a league or association, or for more than one,
devoted to the great purpose of correcting misapprehensions and
moulding public opinion on both sides."[4]
Sir Charles Dilke sympathises with the movement, but believes
there is no chance of a permanent alliance with the United
States as matters now stand:
"I have seen," he says, "no inclination expressed across the
Atlantic by the responsible leaders of political opinion
pointing towards the conclusion of any instrument consecrating
so startling a departure from the American policy of the
past."[5]
{215}
The same author concludes an article[6] entitled "The Future
Relations of Great Britain and the United States" as follows:
"The issue which lies behind this interesting, but perplexing,
study of the future relations of our countries is no less than
the decision whether in the second half of the next century the
dominant interest in the world is to be Anglo-American or
Russian. When I say Anglo-American, I in no way forget the
position in the southern hemisphere of our own great colonies;
but I include them under the first half of my compound name,
Germans may be inclined to take offence at the above hint of
prophecy. It is certain that for a long time to come the
Prussian army must be an enormous factor in the Continental
politics of the Old World. On the other hand, considered as a
World-Power, Germany can hardly rank, even in the time of our
remote descendants, on a level with the Russian Empire, or with
the Anglo-Saxon combination, should the latter come into
existence and survive.
"The matter which I have discussed in this article is no new one
for me. Writing on Europe in 1886-87, I said, referring to what
I had written in 1866-67:
"In 'Greater Britain' the doctrine which I attempted to lay down
was that … the English-speaking … lands should attract a larger
share of the attention of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom;
that in all these, whether subject or not subject to the British
rule, the English race was essentially the same in its most
marked characteristics; that in the principal English-speaking
country not subject to the Queen—the United States—England had
imposed her tongue and laws upon the offshoots of Germany,
Scandinavia, Spain, and I might now add, Russia; and that the
dominance of our language throughout this powerful and enormous
country . . . must produce in the future political phenomena to
which our attention ought more persistently to be called.
"The prophecy has come true. It is for the Americans of the
United States to decide how far toward firm alliance what I
{216} called 'the tie of blood and tongue and history and
letters' shall be carried."
Mr. A. W. Tourgee, in an article entitled "The Twentieth Century
Peacemakers,"[7] discussed with great power the subject involved
here. Inter alia he says:
"So well known and universally acknowledged is this
characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon family, that one wonders how
so much stress should have been laid on community of origin and
identity of civilisation by the advocates of a better
understanding between its two branches, and so little attention
given to the one thing needful to efficient co-operation between
political organisms—to wit, a common aim and purpose.
Especially is this notable when we reflect that conditions not
difficult to define clearly demonstrate that some closer
relation between Great Britain and the United States is not
only a desirable possibility, but an inevitable and quick-coming
necessity. Instead of requiring advocacy at the hands of any
party or individuals, the public sentiment of two great nations
has outrun the sagacity of leaders, and with that curious
instinct which often controls what seems to be a blind emotion,
has truly forecast world-conditions, that must, in a very brief
time, compel the two countries to strike hands for the
preservation of the peace of the world, and the maintenance of
those ideals which the Anglo-Saxon holds above any consideration
of material or political advantage. For despite his enterprise
and greed, the Anglo-Saxon, more willingly than any other stock,
lends ear to Ruskin's 'strange people who have other loves than
those of wealth, and other interests than those of commerce.'
. . .
"The Anglo-Saxon alone offers to the semi-civilised peoples that
come under his control the advantages of intellectual and
material development. The schoolhouse, the free press,
agricultural and commercial development, are inseparable
incidents of Anglo-Saxon sway. Political and material betterment
are {217} the prizes it offers to the laggards in civilisation
who come beneath its rule. This is what England offers in India,
Egypt, and the Soudan; what the United States offers in the West
Indies and the Philippines."
In speaking of the possibility of a combination of other powers
against the Anglo-Saxon race, the same author says:
"Eliminate the United States from the problem, guarantee her
neutrality, and there is little doubt that before the dawn of
the twentieth century the civilised world would be arrayed in
arms against Great Britain."
"Whether they desire it or not, the necessities of the world's
life, the preservation of their own political ideals, and the
commercial and economic conditions which they confront must soon
compel a closer entente between these two great peoples. They
are the peacemakers of the twentieth century, the protectors of
the world's liberty, of free economic development, and of the
weak nationalities of the earth. With nations as with men, peace
is usually the result of apprehension of consequences that might
ensue from conflict. A free people, a government based on public
opinion, a people whose interests demand commercial opportunity,
is always in favour of peace. They may be stirred to war by
injustice or oppression or in assertion of the rights and
liberties of others, but are rarely moved to a war of aggression
or for mere national aggrandisement. Commercial character is the
surest guarantee of peaceful purpose, and the closer union of
the two greatest commercial nations of the world is the
strongest possible security for the world's peace."
Sir Richard Temple, in an article[8] entitled "An Anglo-American
vs. a European Combination," makes an interesting analysis of
the physical and {218} material elements which would enter into
such a struggle. He concludes as follows:
"To us who believe in the superior power of the two
English-speaking nations in comparison with other races taken
together, the question may be put whether such a condition is
morally and intellectually beneficial to us. I am not concerned,
however, here to attempt any answer to such a question, which is
wholly a matter of opinion. This article relates not at all to
opinion, but only to facts.
"I will conclude the Anglo-American case with a metaphor.
Britain is like a Grand Old Dame, well preserved and still
maintaining the vigour and activity of her youth. Her eye is not
dimmed by age; her strong hand is not weakened by the lapse of
centuries. She has been the mother of many children, and has
sometimes had troubles in her family. But in recent times she
has been on good terms with all her offspring, all over the
world. She would not suffer them to be beaten in the race of
nations. If any of them were to fall into danger, she would
bring out her stores, collected through many generations, in
their support. If, on the other hand, she were to be hard
pressed by any hostile combination, then her stalwart sons would
gather round her."
Hon. David Mills, Canadian Minister of Justice,[9] under the
title of "Which Shall Dominate—Saxon or Slav?", makes a very
intelligent analysis of the question of the relative position of
the Anglo-Saxon race against the continental powers of Europe.
He says:
"In the highest sense the United States has not, and cannot
have, an independent existence. Her fortune is inseparably
associated with the race to which she belongs, in which her
future is wrapt up, and in which she lives and moves and has her
being. The unity between the United States and the {219} British
Empire is a matter both of race and growth. They touch each
other, and as peoples unite and great states rise, they must be,
for all great international purposes, one people. They are parts
of the same race, whose extension is being pushed more and more
rapidly forward by the sleepless energy of individual men, under
the protection of the United Kingdom, into barbarous regions
where they are acquiring new standing-room for the formation of
new states. In science, in literature, in government, in
religion, in industrial pursuits, and in the conception of human
rights and of human duties, they are one people, having common
aims, a common origin, and from their necessary relations a
common destiny. . . .
"The interests of the world call for Anglo-Saxon alliance. Let
not the British Empire and the United States revive, after the
lapse of centuries, the old contest of Judah and Ephraim; but,
remembering that their interests are one, as the race is one,
let them stand together, to maintain the ascendency which they
will hold as long as Providence fits them to lead; which will be
as long as, in their dealings with those beneath them, they are
actuated by principles of justice and truth."
Rear-Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, in an article entitled "An
Anglo-American Alliance,"[10] exclaims:
"Much has been said for an Anglo-American alliance. Perhaps
'alliance' is not the right word. We are already of the same
blood, the same feeling, the same religion, and the same
language. Now all that is necessary is to know each other
better. England and America could form the most powerful
alliance possible, because they are the two most patriotic
countries in the world; because they alone, of all the nations,
have an army and navy without conscription. . . . With the
United States and England combined, we could well afford to
smile at our enemies."
{220}
An article which deserves to be carefully read is that by Prof.
George Burton Adams[11] entitled "A Century of Anglo-Saxon
Expansion."
"The simple truth is," says this writer, "that, great as have
been the demands upon the race to create the history of the past
in which we rejoice, the demands of the future will be even
greater. It is the result of this history, the proper and
fitting result, that we are now brought to the supreme test of
racial ability. The nineteenth century, truly considered, is but
an age of preliminary and introductory expansion. If the genius
of the race fail not; if calm submission to the law, unwavering
devotion to the task in hand, steady refusal to follow
glittering allurements or hasty choices, may still be our
leading traits; if we may trust our sons to equal our fathers'
deeds of self-devotion without the hope of fame, then is the
achievement of the nineteenth century but a preparing of the way
for the vaster expansion of the twentieth,—for the founding,
not of the empire of the race, but of the united commonwealth of
all nations.
"But if these things fail us, if this so rapid growth has
exhausted the moral stamina of the race, if by its unsettling
hurry it has destroyed our power of patient self-control, then
shall we repeat the history of other empires. This great fabric
of ours, which, as far as human judgment can discern, needs but
closer union to be secure against the shock of every danger from
without, will in that case break asunder and fall, from its own
inner decay. History will then record that the nineteenth
century was our greatest but our final era of expansion."
Mr. Carl Schurz[12] ends an article upon the subject as follows:
"As to the manner in which the friendly feeling now existing can
be given a tangible expression, Mr. Bryce has made {221} some
valuable suggestions. The first thing to be accomplished is the
conclusion of an arbitration treaty covering all kinds of
differences, and thus recognising that no quarrels can possibly
arise between the two nations which would not be capable of
amicable composition, and that under no circumstances will any
less pacific method of settlement be desired on either side. In
fact, the amendments disfiguring beyond recognition the
arbitration treaty which two years ago was before the Senate,
and its final defeat, were the last effective stroke of the old
anti-British jingoism, for which amends should now be made by a
prompt resumption of negotiations for the accomplishment of that
great object. In this way the Anglo-American friendship will
signalise itself to the world by an act that will not only
benefit the two countries immediately concerned, but set an
example to other nations which, if generally followed, will do
more for the peace and happiness of mankind and the progress of
civilisation than anything that can be effected by armies and
navies."
"The Proposed Anglo-American Alliance" is strongly advocated by
Charles A. Gardiner, Esq., of the New York Bar, in a forcibly
written pamphlet[13] in which he says:
"An alliance between England and America to adjust their
controversies by means of enlightened arbitration has already
been introduced into practical politics. The time is opportune
for its re-introduction. If the friendly sentiments at
Westminster and Washington should be promptly utilised to enact
a treaty of arbitration, such an alliance would be justified on
every ground of common and reciprocal interests, would have the
moral and political support of both nations, would establish a
most beneficent precedent for the international adjustment of
the affairs of mankind, and would do more than any other single
act to make possible the disarmament of nations and the
maintenance of universal peace. . . .
{222}
"The grandest thought of the century is this convergence of the
Anglo-Saxon race. What more ennobling conception can engage the
attention of any association of scholars and thinkers? As
citizens and individuals our duties ally us with this beneficent
movement. Let us promote a unity already begun; let us encourage
the common interests and sentiments of the nations; let us, so
far as in us lies, consummate in our day that alliance of kin
predicted by the wise and good of three generations, as the
'noblest, most beneficial, most peaceful primacy ever presented
to the heart and understanding of man.'"
In an article called "The English-speaking Brotherhood,"
Professor Charles Waldstein,[14] after summarising the elements
that exist in common between the two countries, says:
"Now, when any group of people have all these eight elements in
common, they ought of necessity to form a political unity; and
when a group of people have not the first of these factors [the
same country], but are essentially kin in the remaining seven,
they ought to develop some close form of lasting amity. In the
case of the people of Great Britain and of the United States,
seven of these leading features are actively present.
"It may even be held that the first condition, a common country,
which would make of the two peoples one nation, in some sense
exists for them. At all events, a country is sufficiently common
to them to supply sentimental unity in this direction. . . .
"Leaving the question of a common country, the bond of union
becomes closer the further we proceed with the other essential
influences which make for unity, when once we drop the
misleading and wholly illusory ethnological basis of
nationality, and take into account the process of real history.
We then must acknowledge that the people of Great Britain and of
the United States are of one nationality."
{223}
"The Basis of an Anglo-American Understanding," by the Rev.
Lyman Abbott,[15] concludes as follows:
"Thus far I have suggested only 'a good understanding,' because
this is immediately practicable, yet I have in my imagination an
ideal toward which such a good understanding might tend, but
which would far transcend anything suggested by that somewhat
vague phrase. Let us suppose, then, that Great Britain and the
United States were to enter into an alliance involving these
three elements: first, absolute reciprocity of trade; second, a
tribunal to which should be referred for settlement, as a matter
of course, all questions arising between the two nations, as
now all questions arising between the various states of this
Union are referred to the Supreme Court of the United States;
third, a mutual pledge that an assault on one should be
regarded as an assault on both, so that as towards other nations
these two would be united as the various states of this Union
stand united towards all other states. Such an alliance would
include not only our own country and the British Isles, but all
the colonies and dependencies of Great Britain—Canada,
Australasia, and in time such provinces in Asia and Africa as
are under British domination and administration. It would unite
in the furtherance of a Christian civilisation all the
Anglo-Saxon peoples, and all the peoples acting under the
guidance and controlling influence of Anglo-Saxon leaders, it
would gradually draw into itself all other peoples of like
minds, though of foreign race, such as, in the far east, the
people of Japan. It would create a new confederation based on
principles and ideas not on tradition, and bounded by the
possibilities of human development not by geographical lines. It
would give a new significance to the motto E Pluribus Unum,
and would create a new United States of the World of which the
United States of America would be a component part."
Mr. Julian Ralph ends an article,[16] in which he {224} closely
examines the causes of the present prejudice existing between
the two countries, with this sentence:
"As a last word upon the subject of the mooted alliance, my
own belief is that it is not as practicable or as advisable as
the good understanding that seems to have already been brought
about without too suspicious a show of anxiety on either side,
without elaborate discussion, and without formal agreement, I
agree with the wisest American to whom I have spoken on the
subject, and who said a year ago, when there was no such roseate
outlook as this of to-day, 'It may be delayed, and we may even
quarrel with England before it is brought about, but,
nevertheless, the certain destiny of the two peoples is to
stand together for the maintenance of order, justice, and
humanity, and for the extension of a higher form of civilisation
than any other nations stand for."
Mr. James K. Hosmer, in an article entitled "The American
Evolution: Dependence, Independence, Interdependence,"[17] after
presenting a number of contemporaneous English authorities,"1 to
show that the American Revolution was inevitable, and in the
true interests of the English people themselves, and after
quoting a letter which John Bright wrote in 1887 to the
Committee for the Celebration of the Centennial of the American
Constitution, wherein he states—" As you advance in the second
century of your national life, may we not ask that our two
nations may become one people?" closes as follows:
"The townships make up the county, the counties the state, the
states the United States. What is to hinder a further extension
of the federal principle, so that finally we {225} may have a
vaster United States, whose members shall be, as empire State,
America; then the mother, England; and lastly the great English
dependencies, so populous and thoroughly developed that they may
justly stand co-ordinate? It cannot be said that this is an
unreasonable or Utopian anticipation. Dependence was right in
its day; but for English help colonial America would have become
a province of France. Independence was and is right. It was well
for us, and for Britain too, that we were split apart.
Washington, as the main agent in the separation, is justly the
most venerated name in our history. But _inter_dependence, too,
will in its day be right; and great indeed will be that
statesman of the future who shall reconstitute the family bond,
conciliate the members into an equal brotherhood, found the
vaster union which must be the next great step towards the
universal fraternity of man, when patriotism may be merged into
a love that will take in all humanity.
"Such suggestions as have just been made are sure to be opposed
both in England and America. We on our side cite England's
oppression of Ireland, the rapacity with which in all parts of
the world she has often enlarged her boundaries, the brutality
with which she has trampled upon the rights of weaker men. They
cite against America her 'century of dishonour' in the treatment
of the Indians, the corruption of her cities, the ruffian's
knife and pistol, ready to *** on slight provocation, the
prevalence of lynch law over all other law in great districts,
her yellow journalism. Indeed, it is a sad tale of shortcoming
for both countries. Yet in the case of each the evil is balanced
by a thousand things great and good, and the welfare of the
world depends upon the growth and prosperity of the
English-speaking lands as upon nothing else. The welfare of the
world depends upon their accord; and no other circumstance at
the present moment is so fraught with hope as that, in the midst
of the heavy embarrassments that beset both England and America,
the long-sundered kindred slowly gravitate toward alliance."[18]
{226}
Mr. B. O. Flower contributes an article to the discussion,[19]
entitled "The Proposed Federation of the Anglo-Saxon Nations,"
favouring an alliance. The key-note of his views is contained in
this passage[20]:
"But beyond a common blood, language, and mutual interests,
rises the factor which above all others is fundamental, and
which more than aught else makes such an alliance worthy of
serious consideration, and that is the common ideal or goal to
which all the moral energies of both people are moving, the
spirit which permeates all English-speaking nations, namely,
popular sovereignty, or self-government; that is, republicanism
in essence."[21]
Mr. Richard Olney, in a convincing argument[22] on international
isolation of the United States, explains the doctrine of
Washington's warning to his countrymen, "It is our true policy
to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the
foreign world," as follows:
"The Washington rule of isolation, then, proves on examination
to have a much narrower scope than the generally accepted
versions given to it. Those versions of it may and undoubtedly
do find countenance in loose and general and unconsidered
statements of public men both of the Washington era and of later
times, . . . Nothing can be more obvious, therefore, than that
the conditions for which Washington made his rule no longer
exist. . . . There is a patriotism of race as well as of
country—and the Anglo-American is as little likely to be
indifferent to the one as to {227} the other. Family quarrels
there have been heretofore and doubtless there will be again,
and the two peoples, at a safe distance which the broad Atlantic
interposes, take with each other liberties of speech which only
the fondest and dearest relatives indulge in. Nevertheless, they
would be found standing together against any alien foe by whom
either was menaced with destruction or irreparable calamity, it
is not permissible to doubt. Nothing less could be expected of
the close community between them in origin, speech, thought,
literature, institutions, ideals—in the kind and degree of the
civilisation enjoyed by both."
In an article entitled "Shall the United States be
Europeanised?"[23] Mr. John Clark Ridpath violently opposes an
alliance. He states:
"The time has come when the United States must gravitate rapidly
towards Europe or else diverge from Europe as far and as
fast as possible.
"This is an overwhelming alternative which forces itself upon
the American people at the close of the nineteenth century; in
the twentieth we shall be either Europeanised or
democratized—the one or the other. There is no place of stable
equilibrium between the two. This is true for the reason that
there can be no such thing as a democratic monarchy; no such
thing as a monarchical republic; no such thing as a popular
aristocracy; no such thing as a democracy of nabobs.
"The twentieth century will bring us either to democracy
unequivocal or to empire absolute. All hybrid combinations of
the two are unstable; they break and pass away. Either the one
type or the other must be established in our Western hemisphere.
The democratic Republic which we thought we had, and which we
so greatly prized and fought for, must now sheer off from
Europe altogether, or else sail quietly back to Europe and
come to anchor. Shall we or shall we not go thither?"
{228}
In another article, entitled "The United States and the Concert
of Europe,"[24] he says:
"In the first place, I inquire, what is the meaning of the
proposed alliance between the United States and Great Britain?
What kind of an alliance is it that we are asked to enter? Is
it an alliance of mere sympathies between the people of the
United States and the people of the British Isles? Or is it a
league which contemplates a union of military resources,
defensive and offensive, one or both? Is it a temporary joining
of forces for specific purposes in relation to the existing
Spanish War? Is it a coalescence of British and American
institutions? Is it a civil and political union which is
contemplated? Is it a government alliance in the sense that the
government of Great Britain and the government of the United
States shall be and act as one? And if so, which one shall it
be? Under which flag is the alliance to be made? Are we, when
the union shall be effected, to follow the standard of St.
George, or are we to march under the star-banner of our fathers?
Whose flag is to prevail? Whose institutional structure is to be
accepted for both nations? Of a certainty, we cannot march under
both flags. It must be under the one or the other. Which shall
it be? Shall we take the flag of the British Empire, or the flag
of American Democracy?"
Mr. R.E. Kingsford, in an article entitled "Roma! Cave
Tibi!"[25] which he commences with a fervent declaration of love
for England and Englishmen, continues:
"Do you care to be warned, or do you wish to continue in a
course which will split up your Empire? It is time to speak
plainly and it is time for us to understand one another. No
matter how much we admire you, no matter how much we reverence
you, no matter how much we are ready to submit to neglect at
your hands, the time has come when the future {229} course of
our relations must be settled. We feel very sore at your
preference for the United States. We have been brought up to
think that you are right and that they are wrong. We believe in
your system of government as opposed to theirs. Both cannot be
right. We have always thought that the people ruled in England,
while the mob ruled in the United States. But, alas! We are
beginning to think that we have been wrong. We see you
Englishmen caressing the Americans, flattering them, submitting
to them, backing out of declarations made as to what you were
going to do until they stepped in and told you to stop. We see
our public men, almost without exception, in every speech they
make, allude fondly in round set terms to their 'kin beyond the
seas.' Will nothing open your eyes? Will you not see that these
people are not your kin? They are aliens. Will you not
understand that they do not care two straws about you? Their
idea is that they are the mightiest nation upon earth. They
consider that they own the Continent of North America and that
your presence on that continent is an anachronism and an
absurdity. Surely they have told you so plainly enough. Do you
think that by protesting so much admiration for them you will
disarm them? If you do, you are making a huge mistake which you
will bitterly pay for. . . .
"I warn you, Englishmen, you are treading on dangerous ground.
The British Lion is hugging and slobbering over the American
Eagle. But that scrawny bird is only submitting to be embraced.
The situation is an illustration of the French Proverb, that
there is always one who loves (England), and one who is loved
(the United States.) Presently the Eagle's beak will tear the
Lion's flesh, and the Eagle's talons tear the Lion's side. Then
there will be a roar of astonished anger. But the mistake will
have been made, the mischief will have been done. Cease this
Anglo-American nonsense. Rely on your own colonies. Establish
inter-Imperial tariffs. . . .
"If you persist in allowing yourselves to be cozened by your
belief or trust in American good-will, so that you neglect or
slight your loyal and true Canadian fellow-subjects, you will
lose Canada, you will lose your West India Islands, and {230}
then how long will the rest of your Empire last? Roma! Cave
Tibi!"
In an editorial from the Canadian Magazine for August, 1898,
entitled "A Hasty Alliance," the learned editor writes as
follows:
"During the past two months the proposed Anglo-American
Understanding has occupied a great deal of attention in Great
Britain and Canada, and a very fair amount of similar enthusiasm
in the United States. The idea of an understanding which will
enable both branches of the English race—if it may be called
such—to work side by side, with one aim and one mission, is
certainly most worthy. If it can be successfully carried into
performance, it will be the most important political development
of the nineteenth century.
"The officials of Great Britain have always been courteous, and
kind, and considerate to the United States. These gentlemen have
gone so far as to pay the United States a million dollars more
for Alabama claims than was actually necessary. They gave up
half the State of Maine because they did not care to remark that
a certain map was a forgery. They have always used respectable
language about or to the United States. When, therefore, they
now say that they value United States friendship and approve of
Anglo-Saxon unity, I cannot accuse them of inconsistency. Nor
can I in my own mind feel that they are insincere. . . .
"Personally, I have no objection to Lord Wolseley, Lord
Dufferin, Sir Wilfred Laurier, and Sir Charles Tupper expressing
their appreciation of the United States, and their desire to see
permanent friendly relations between the two countries. These
gentlemen represent the officialdom of Great Britain and of
Canada, and are speaking semi-officially. They are, without
doubt, quite sincere in their desire to have the two branches of
the nation act in unison. But I do object to their pushing Mr.
Chamberlain's idea with too much cheap publicity. Let them say
what they think and feel without descending to fulsome flattery
which they may some day wish they had left unsaid."
{231}
In "Commercial Relations between Canada and the United States,"
by Robert McConnell, editor of the Halifax Morning Herald,[26]
the writer states:
"We believe further that the time has gone by when American
politicians can woo Canada into a political union even by a
policy of friendliness and close commercial relations. Without
in any way seeking to disparage the United States as a great
nation, and her people as worthy of the Anglo-Saxon stock from
which they sprang, the Canadian people feel that theirs is a
higher national and political destiny—to be one of the great
family of Anglo-Saxon nations comprising a worldwide British
Empire, whose mission is to civilise, enlighten, and
christianise the people who come under her sway, and by the
genius of free institutions and the influence of a world-wide,
peace-producing, and humanising commerce to raise strong
barriers against the demon of war and promote peace and
good-will among the nations. Why should not the United States
come into the Anglo-Saxon family of nations, and have a share in
such noble work? There is room enough and scope enough on this
continent for the two Anglo-Saxon nations—Canada and the United
States—daughters of a common mother, custodians of a common
liberty—to work out their separate destinies without being
jealous of each other or coveting each other's patrimony and
birthright. They can maintain a friendly and honourable rivalry
in the world of industry and commerce, and at the same time
co-operate heartily in promoting the arts of peace and
civilisation, and the welfare of our common humanity the world
over."
In an article entitled "The Anglo-American Alliance and the
Irish-Americans," by Rev. George McDermot, C.S.P.,[27] the
writer opens his article with the following sentence:
"I was tempted to call the alliance proposed by certain persons
between England and America 'the Chamberlain-American {232}
Alliance'; but stating this thought will answer the purpose of
such a heading. I take the subject up as a parable, now that the
Local Government Bill for Ireland has passed the Lower House.
. . .
"I ask, where is the advantage to America to spring from such an
alliance? I have spoken of the subject with reference to Mr.
Chamberlain; I shall discuss it in the abstract and show, if
space permits, that such an alliance is based on the suggestion
of an immoral compact, and is intended for the promotion of a
wicked policy, the main advantage of which would be found to
rest with England. The idea stated is that the United States
will give to England the part of the Philippines they do not
mean to retain; and the justification for this is the
Pecksniffian one that 'British Civilisation and British Rule
will be for the benefit of the islanders.' It is hard to avoid
reference to other islanders who have had a long experience of
that rule and civilisation. We are informed in this publication,
which is sometimes favoured with the lucubrations of Mr.
Chamberlain, and never without glosses on his high policy by
faithful hands, that 'if it is any advantage to England to own a
new Asiatic possession she can probably add to the Empire
without much trouble.' This bid for an alliance in pursuance of
Mr. Chamberlain's aims is audacious in its candour. It is made
at the very moment the 'touling' of the right honourable
gentleman has become the subject of dignified and regretful
criticism on the part of English public men and the raillery of
the Continental press. The honour of the radical section of the
Liberal party is saved. It was that section which stood by
America in the Civil War, when the ruling and moneyed classes
were equipping privateers to prey upon her commerce and trying
to compel a recognition of the independence of the Confederacy.
. . . "
The author closes with the following sentence:
"However, to pull the chestnuts out of the fire in China is one
of the advantages America is to obtain by the proposed alliance;
and to me, indeed, the putting of it forward {233} affords the
clearest indication that the Secretary for the Colonies,
notwithstanding debating talents of no common order, is
incapable of forming a policy, wider than the area of a borough,
and unable to take the measure of relations and interests,
difficulties and complications, larger than those which surround
a scheme for lighting or paving a prosperous municipality in
England."
Then I must not forget two quotations from articles by Mr. A.
Maurice Low, "America's Debt to England"[28] where he says:
"An Anglo-American alliance—not merely an 'understanding,' but
formal, definite alliance—I hope to see in the near future. It
would mark an epoch in the world's history; it would mean the
elevation, the happiness, the advancement of the whole world; it
would bring us one step nearer the ideal. In the language of the
British Secretary of State for Colonial affairs:
"'Our imagination must be fired when we contemplate the
possibility of such a cordial understanding between the seventy
million people of the United States and our fifty million
Britons, an understanding which would guarantee peace and
civilisation to the world.'"
In another article, entitled "Russia, England and the United
States,"[29] he writes:
"In language, in thought, in habits, in manners, in morals, in
religion there is nothing in common between the great mass of
the people of the United States and the great mass of the people
of the Czar's dominions. Our law is based on the common law of
England; our literature is derived from the same inspiration;
even when we have been foes our common blood has made our deeds
and heroism soften the bitterness of war. Perry's victory on
Lake Erie thrills the English boy as much as the recital of
Broke's capture {234} of the Chesapeake does the American.
Only the other day American and British naval officers, fighting
a common foe, fell side by side; and this was not the first time
the blood of the two races had mingled facing the enemy; in
fact, the Russian and the American are antagonistic. It is, as
Senator Lodge points out, the conflict of the Slav and the
Saxon—a conflict which has been waging for centuries, and must
eventually be fought to the bitter end, until the freedom of the
Saxon is so firmly planted that it can never be assailed, or the
militarism of the Slav crushes the world under its iron heel
and, for a second time, the 'Scourge of God' dominates."
Last in time, but not in strength and eloquence of language,
comes Mr. Stead, with a perfect torrent of ideas in favour of
the quick nationalisation of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. His book
must be read as a whole, and cannot be adequately portrayed by
short quotations.[30]
I have now finished what I know to be an imperfect attempt to
bring this great subject adequately before the mind of the
reader. I must be satisfied merely to open it. The aim of the
book is to show that the unification of the English-speaking
peoples means the elevation and enlightenment of mankind, the
mitigation of suffering, and the opening of new roads to human
happiness. This is the mission of the race, and the twentieth
century—the Anglo-Saxon Century—should behold its
accomplishment.
To aid Anglo-Saxon union I appeal to philosophers, historians,
and all other writers to espouse a cause which calls into
exercise the best instincts and noblest impulses of mind and
soul; I appeal {235} to lawyers to combine in favour of a union
which preserves and enlarges a system of jurisprudence, which,
properly administered, means exact justice and true equality to
all men; I appeal to individual priests and preachers everywhere
to advocate a text which will draw men nearer to true religion;
I appeal to all the Churches, whose holy mission is peace and
good-will to the world; and I finally appeal to the organs of
public opinion, individually and collectively: the Pulpit, the
Press, the Bar, and the Stage, to help the great Anglo-Saxon
peoples consummate their destiny in one combined effort to
perform the duty with which God has charged them.
"All power
I give thee; reign for ever, and assume
Thy merits; under thee, as Head Supreme, Thrones, Princedoms,
Powers, Dominions,
I reduce,"[31]
[1] Contemporary Review, April, 1897.
[2] Atlantic Monthly, July, 1898.
[3] Scribner's Magazine, December, 1898.
[4] Westminster Review, August, 1898.
[5] Pall Mall Magazine, September, 1898.
[6] Forum, January, 1899.
[7] Contemporary Review, June, 1899.
[8] North American Review, September, 1898.
[9] North American Review, June, 1898.
[10] The Independent, February 23, 1899.
[11] Atlantic Monthly, April, 1897.
[12] Ibid., October, 1898.
[13] Questions of the Day, No. XCII., p. 27. published by G.
P. Putnam's Sons.
[14] North American Review, August, 1898.
[15] North American Review, May, 1898.
[16] Harper's New Monthly Magazine, February, 1899.
[17] Atlantic Monthly, July, 1898.
[18] See, also, by the same author, A Short History of
Anglo-Saxon Freedom, 1890.
[19] Arena, August, 1898.
[20] Pp. 225, 226.
[21] See, also, "The Anglo-American Future," by Frederick
Greenwood, The Nineteenth Century, July, 1898.
[22] Atlantic Monthly, May, 1898.
[23] Arena, December, 1897.
[24] Arena, August, 1898.
[25] Canadian Magazine, January, 1899
[26] Canadian Magazine, January, 1899.
[27] Catholic World, October, 1898.
[28] Anglo-American Magazine, March, 1899.
[29] Forum, October, 1899.
[30] The Americanization of the World, W.T. Stead.
[31] Paradise Lost, Book III.
{236}
{237}
Index
A
Abbott, Rev. Lyman, article "The Basis of an Anglo-American
Understanding," 223
Act of Congress, April 20, 1898, 45
Adams, Prof. George Burton, article "A Century Anglo-Saxon
Expansion," 22
Adams, John, is descent, 105
Adams, John Quincy, his descent, 105
Adams, Samuel, his descent, 100
Alfred the Great, his millennium, 73, 74; his work, 75
Anglo-American League, resolution of same, 57; its officers, 57;
its brief history, 152
Anglo-Saxon alliance, origin of suggestion, 48; first limited to
an offensive and defensive treaty, 54; growth of alliance, 54,
55; indefiniteness of same, 55, 58, 59; motive of alliance, 57,
58; present condition of subject, 59; first step in the
movement, 59, 60; how the subject will be treated by
politicians, 60, 61; impracticability of defensive and offensive
treaty, 61, 62, 152; basis of alliance, 67, 68; commemorated by
some instrument, 68; Revolution of 1776 said to be a barrier to
alliance, 84; past should be forgotten, 94, 95; England has
changed since 1776, 95, 96; alliance is natural as to time, 100;
alliance is natural as to people, 100, 101; first place ought to
be given to family nationality, 102; same language, 108-112;
same literature, 116; same political institutions, 124; same
laws, legal customs, general modes of judicial procedure, 133,
134; same tendency of religious thought, 137, 138; value of
intermarriage, 138; value of a common drama, 139, 140; natural
community in everything important, 141; commercial reasons, 143,
144; self-preservation leads to same, 145, 146; effect of recent
years upon the two nations, 153; state of public opinion, 209,
210; majority of newspapers favour alliance, 210; pulpit favours
same, 210; the stage favours same, 210; quotations favouring
alliance, 212 et seq.; see Methods of union; see Subjects
of treaty
Anglo-Saxon race, European combination vs. same, 50;
accusations against, 51; its striking characteristic, 63, 76,
77; corroborations by eminent authority, 63, 64; all of one
family, 101, 102; vigour due to admixture of blood, 103; another
characteristic, 147; its ideals have never been destroyed, 148;
its unselfish progress, 148, 149; duty of race, 150
Arbitration court, 207, 208
Arthur, Chester A., his descent, 100
B
Bacon, Lord, importance of commercial freedom, 203, 204
Bainbridge, William, his descent, 107
{238}
Beresford, Lord Charles, article "An Anglo-American Alliance,"
219
Bright, John, his wish for unity, 224
Bryce, James, advocating common citizenship, 188, 213
Buchanan, James, his descent, 106 Burke, Edmund, commends
English colonial government, 88
C
Calhoun, John C., his descent, 106 Canada, bond with England
merely sentimental, 100; her present relation to England, 100;
her constitution, 163; effect of same, 163; her value to
England, 164; England formal sovereign and actual champion, 165,
166; how affected by war between England and United States, 166,
167; relation to United States, 172, 173; lesson from Scotch
history, 173-175; originally embraced in plan of American
Republic, 175; attempts towards annexation, 176, 177; apathy in
United States, 177; benefits of union, 195
Carlyle, Thomas, the power of literature, 124
Chamberlain, Joseph, article favouring alliance, 213, 214
Chase, Salmon P., his descent, 100 China, commercial relations
to Western Powers, 16; policy of Western Powers towards China,
17, 20; her internal condition, 18-20; conduct of Powers in late
difficulty, 21, 22
Choate, Rufus, his descent, 107 Christianity, introduction into
England, 72; its relation to government, 72; its part in
England, 73; first step in English progress, 73
Civilisation, its primary meaning, 64; its secondary meaning,
65, 66; third meaning, 66
Clay, Henry, his descent, 100 Cleveland, Grover, his descent,
106
Commercial relations of England and America, an early glimpse,
143; one business community, 144; statistics of imports and
exports, 144; advantages of free commercial relations, 202-204;
two benefits from commercial reciprocity, 205
Common citizenship, scheme of same, 180-182; effects of same,
182, 189, 199, 200; Constitution to be amended, 183; rights and
duties resulting from establishment of common citizenship, 183,
184; advocacy of same, 188, 189; see Naturalisation Laws
Constitution of United States, comparison with Magna Charta,
127-131; for the people, 128; agreement between thirteen
independent States, 128; the legislative power regulated, 128;
distinction between it and English charters, 130, 131; source of
inspiration, 132; Bill of Rights copied from English charters,
132; new matter in same, 132; Gladstone's eulogy, 133
Copeland, Walter Charles, article favouring alliance, 214
Cuba, short-sighted policy of United States towards Cuba, 45
D
Davis, Jefferson, his descent, 100 Decatur, Stephen H., his
descent, 107
De Tocqueville, language the strongest tie, 110
Dewey, George, his descent, 107 Dicey, Professor, advocating
common citizenship, 188; article, "A Common Citizenship for the
English Races," 212
Dilke, Sir Charles, article on alliance, 214; article, "The
Future Relations of Great Britain and the United States," 215,
216
E
Egbert, union brought about by, 74
Ellsworth, Oliver, his descent, 107
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, quotation from English Traits, 73; his
descent, 108
England, predictions of decline, 5; predictions refuted, 5, 6;
amelioration of society in nineteenth century, 8; checking
Russia in the East, 12, 13; conduct in late {239} Chinese
difficulty, 21; future policy towards China, 22; her aid to
United States in Spanish-American War, 49. 50, 52, 53; accused
of leading United States into Imperialism, 54;—History:
commencement of national life:, 71, 72; Christianity in England,
first step in her progress, 72, 73; consolidation of kingdoms,
second step in her progress, 74; drift towards unity arrested,
75, 76; causes which finally resulted in alliance, 76;
comparison with Grecian cities, 76, 77; influence of Roman law,
third step in her progress, 77, 78; the Great Charter, the
Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights,
the Act of Settlement, fourth span in English development, 79,
80; union with Scotland, fifth span in English development, '80;
opposition in Scotland to union, 81; discovery of America, sixth
span in English development, 81, 82; independence in the
colonies, seventh great span in English development, 83, 84;
England has changed since 1776, 95, 96; English welcome to
American literature, 123; English political development,
124-131; time of Alfred, 125; seeds of parliamentary birth, 125,
126; germs of Magna Charta, 126; the grants of Henry I. and
Stephen, 127; origin of House of Commons, 129; separation from
Church of Rome, 130; despotism under Tudors, 130; reforms in
reign of William III., 130;—state of religion, 137, 138; her
position in Europe, 145, 146; her relation to Canada, 163, 164;
formal sovereign and actual champion, 165-167; see
Revolutionary War; see Magna Charta
English race, see England
Evarts, William M., his descent, 107
Evolution, definition of, 48, 49
F
Farragut, David Glascoe, his descent, 107
Fillmore, Millard, his descent, 106
Flower, B. O., article., The Proposed Federation of the
Anglo-Saxon Nations," 226
Foote, Andrew Hull, his descent, 107
France, her internal decay, 22, 23; mistakes in government, 23;
incongruous position of French Cabinet, 24; deplorable condition
of Republicanism, 25, 29; effect of Franco-Prussian War, 26, 27;
origin of alliance with Russia, 27; hurtful effect of alliance,
28; her true policy, 28, 30; potency of militarism, 29, 30
Franco-Russian alliance, origin of, 27; effect of, 28
Franklin, Benjamin, his descent, 106 Freeman, Professor, nation
defined by language, 113; system of separate free cities, 170;
his hope for common citizenship, 188
G
Gallatin, Albert, his descent, 108
Gardiner, Charles A., article "The Proposed Anglo-American
Alliance," 221, 222
Garfield, James A., his descent, 106 Gibbon, Edward, narrow
policy of preserving, without mixture, pure blood of the ancient
citizens, 103
Gladstone, William E., eulogy on American Constitution, 133
Government, its primary ends, 62; the ideal commonwealth, 62,
63; government has character like individual, 69, 70; isolation
is unnatural, 147; government is made for man, 200; distinction
between democracy and republic, 201, 202
Grant, U. S., his descent, 106
Grecian states, deficient in political unity, 187; Roman policy
compared, 187
Greene, Nathanael, his descent, 107
Grote, language a tie among the Greeks, 113
H
Hamilton, Alexander, his descent, 108; neighbouring nations
natural enemies of each other, 171
{240}
Harrison, Benjamin, his descent, 106 Harrison, William H., his
descent, 106
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, his descent, 108
Hayes, Rutherford B., his descent, 106
Henry, Patrick, his descent, 106 History, its underlying forces,
46, 47
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, descent of, 108
Hosmer, James K., article, "Dependence, Independence,
Interdependence," 224, 225
I
Immigration, sentiment against, 194; sentiment not against
English-speaking peoples, 194, 195
Ireland, common citizenship a benefit to, 190
Irving, Washington, his descent, 108
Isopolity, description of same, 185, 186; see Common
citizenship
J
Jackson, Andrew, his descent, 106 Jackson, Thomas Jonathan, his
descent, 107
Jay, John, his descent, 107 Jefferson, Thomas, his descent, 105
Johnson, Andrew, his descent, 106
Johnston, Joseph E., his descent, 107
K
Kent, James, descent of, 107
Kingsford, R. E., article "Roma! Cave Tibi!" 228-230; "A Hasty
Alliance," 230
L
Language, power of, 109, 110; bond of sympathy, III; tie among
the Greeks, 113-115
Laurier, Sir Wilfred, interview with same concerning Canadian
question, 171
Law, similarity of laws in United States and England, 133-135;
differences in same, 136
Lea, Charles Henry, article. "The Decadence of Spain," 35
Lecky, the dream of many English and Americans, 154, 155;
sentiment of nationality, 100
Lee, Robert Edward, his descent, 107
Lincoln, Abraham, his descent, 100
Literature, its function, 116, 117; its imperishableness, 117;
universal medium of communication, 118; English literature
compared, 118; consequences of its development, 119; derivation
of English literature, 120; its native quality, 121, 122;
English welcome to American literature, 123
Longfellow, Henry W., his descent, 108
Low, A. Maurice, article "America's Debt to England," 233;
"Russia, England, and the United States," 233,234
Lowell, James Russell, his descent, 108
M
McConnell, Robert, article "Commercial Relations between Canada
and the United States," 231
McDermot, Rev. George, article "The Anglo-American Alliance and
the Irish-Americans," 231-233
McFadden, Theodore, article on William Penn, 73
McKinley, William, his descent, 100 Madison, James, his descent,
105
Magna Charta, comparison with Constitution of United States,
127-131; enacted in a single day. 127; brief summary of its
provisions, 127; parties to charter, 127; Deed of Confirmation,
128; rights of persons and things, 128; limitation of kingly
power, 129
Marshall, John, his descent, 107 Methods of union,
impracticability of one nation for all Englishmen and Americans,
154; impracticability of federation, 154, 155; treaty binding
upon all a feasible method of union, 155-157; contents of
treaty, 157
Mexico, her peculiar position, 42; power of President Diaz, 42;
incapability of people for republican government, 43
{241}
Miles, Nelson A., his descent, 107
Mills, Hon. David, article, North American Review, "Which
Shall Dominate, Saxon or Slav?" 13-16
Mommsen, admission with reference to English, 63; sins of
fathers not visited upon children, 95; common citizenship in
Grecian communities, 180; Hellenic system of common money, 200
Money, influence of common standard, 205. 206
Monroe Doctrine, application to confederation of
Spanish-speaking countries, 40, 41
Monroe, James, his descent, 105 Montesquieu, quotation from
Spirit of Laws, 63
Morgan, J. Pierpont, his descent, 108
Morris, Robert, his descent, 108
N
Naturalisation laws, their general policy, 191; history of, in
United States, 191, 192; object of same, 193; laxity of their
enforcement, 196; objections to curtailment answered, 196;
foreigners cannot interfere, 197, 198; see Common citizenship
O
Olney, Richard, article explaining Washington's policy of
isolation, 226, 227
P
Perry, Oliver H., his descent, 107
Peter the Great, his dream of conquest, 13
Pierce, Franklin, his descent, 106
Poe, Edgar Allan, his descent, 108
Polk, James K., his descent, 106
Preble, Edward, his descent, 107
R
Ralph, Julian, article favouring alliance, 224
Randolph, John, his descent, 100
Revolutionary War, natural result of existing conditions, 85,
86; apology for same, 86, 87; antecedent conditions prior to
same justified, 88, 89; war a blessing to the United States, 90;
England fought for union with us, 93
Ridpath, John Clark, article "Shall the United States be
Europeanised?" 227; article "The United States and the Concert
of Europe," 228
Roman law, third span in English civilisation, 77; influence in
England, 77, 78; comparison with common law, 78; instrument of
despotism, 78
Roosevelt, Theodore, his descent, 106
Russia, internal condition, II; external policy, 11,12,14,15;
her adaptability to govern China, 15: her Chinese policy, 17
S
Schurz, Carl, article advocating alliance, 220, 221
Scotland, union with England, 80; opposition to same, 81; wisdom
of union, 174, 175; Bacon's advocacy of same, 179
Scott, Winfield, his descent, 107 Self-preservation, nature of,
explained, 145
Semmes, Raphael, his descent, 107
Seward, William H., his descent, 106
Sheridan, Philip H., his descent, 107
Sherman, William Tecumseh, his descent, 107
Smith, Goldwin, union of Canada with United States, 176
South American republics, condition of same, 41
Spain, financial depletion, 37; dissatisfaction with government,
38; natural advantages, 39; strong monarchical tendency, 39, 40
Spanish-American War, its significance, 2, 3; England's aid to
the United States, 49, 50, 52, 53: importance of war, 55
Spanish, and Portuguese people, number of persons who speak
language, 31-33; territory occupied by same, 31-33; absence of
political unity, 33; their past history contrasted with present,
34, 35; {242} individual characteristics, 35; comparison with
Anglo-Saxons, 35, 36; difficulties of establishing federation
between Spanish-speaking countries, 39-41; see Spain
Stead, W, T., the Americanisation of the world, 234
Story, Joseph, his descent, 107 Subjects of treaty, Canada to
come into the United States, 159, 160; union must be voluntary,
161; interest plus sentiment, 162; treaty of common citizenship
sustainable, 198; proviso to treaty under certain conditions,
199; free commercial relations between English-speaking
countries, 202, 203; same gold, silver, nickel, and copper
money, 205, 200; uniform standard of weights and measures, 207;
arbitration court, 207, 208; see common citizenship
Sumner, Charles, his descent, 106
Sympolity, meaning of same, 185, 186
T
Taney, Roger Brooke, his descent, 107
Taylor, Zachary, his descent, 100
Temple, Sir Richard, article "An Anglo-American vs. a European
Combination," 218
Thomas, George Henry, his descent, 107
Thucydides, quotation from, 162
Tilden, Samuel J., his descent, 107
Tourgee, A. W., article "The Twentieth Century Peacemakers,"
216, 217
Tyler, John, his descent, 100
U
United States, effect of Spanish War upon, 3, 4; conduct in late
Chinese difficulty, 21; future policy towards China, 22; assent
to federation of Spanish-speaking countries, 40, 41; weak policy
towards Cuba, 45; England's support to United Slates in
Spanish-American War, 49, 50,52, 53; population is
heterogeneous, 103, 104; foreign element quickly assimilated,
104; loyalty of these new citizens to the Republic, 104, 105;
predominant element is of English, Scotch, and Irish descent,
105; statement illustrated, 105-108; English welcome to American
literature, 123; colossal development explained, 134; barrier to
creation of Republic, 134; similarity between English laws and
laws of United States, 135-137; state of religion, 137, 138;
English financial support built up the country, 143; Canada bone
of contention between England and United States, 172; Canada's
relation to United States, 172, 173; indifference in United
States towards union with Canada, 177; history of naturalisation
laws, 191; see Canada; see Revolutionary War; see
Constitution of the United States
V
Van Buren, Martin, his descent, 106
W
Waldstein, Prof. Charles, article "The English-Speaking
Brotherhood" 222
Washington, George, his descent, 105
Wealth, its true meaning, 6; its relation to the State, 7
Webster, Daniel, speech at Plymouth, 63, 64; his descent, 106;
speech at Oxford, 122; speech at public dinner of New England
Society of New York, 149, 150
Whittier, John Greenleaf, his descent, 108
[Transcriber's Note: All spellings have been preserved as
printed. Footnotes have been re-numbered to convert them to
chapter endnotes.]
