CHAPTER XV

THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT

R. PRESIDENT, I did not at this time intend to address the Senate at length upon this subject, for I

had expected that the resolutions of inquiry which I had offered would be adopted and the information thus furnished from official sources before the debate commenced. But the discussions which arose and the impressions which were made seem to have precipitated a general discussion of the question. I shall begin my remarks to-day by reading from one of Lincoln's speeches the following paragraph:

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves,' and under the rule of a just God can not long retain it.

I believe that is true. I believe the reflex action upon our own people of the conquest of other peoples and their governments, against their will, will gradually undermine free institutions in this country and result in the destruction of the Republic. What are the arguments urged why we should force a government upon the people of the Philippines? The President of the United States says they are not fit for selfgovernment. From my observation of history I believe there are no people fit for any other form of government. Governments are instituted, not bestowed, and therefore derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Any nation of people are capable of maintaining as good a government as they are entitled to have, and when they can maintain a better government they will evolve it, and you can not give them a better government than they can maintain for themselves. A form of government is the result of 1. Speech in the Senate January 15, 1900.

the social compact, and therefore the government of a people will be as good as the average of the individuals composing the community are willing to have. The American Indians maintained a government, and for them a better one than we have been able to bestow upon them. The Esquimos in the arctic region maintain a government of their own, suited to their condition and their circumstances, and it is a better government than anybody else can give them. Would their condition be improved by sending to them foreign governors and a foreign council to enact laws and direct their course and method of life, to guide them in their civic and civil affairs? So with every other people the world round. There is nothing in the history of the colonies of the so-called Christian nations of the world to encourage the idea that we can give to this people a better government than they are able to maintain themselves.

The old doctrine of the divine right of kings, of the hereditary right to rule, is a doctrine that we disputed and controverted when we established our Government and when we announced the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. So proud have we been of that discovery that each year we have celebrated the birth into the world of a new theory, a new doctrine with regard to governments; and four hundred constitutions have been framed after ours. So powerful has our example been throughout the world, that nation after nation struggling to be free has adopted our form of government.

No nation, no people, in all time and in all history ever impressed such a powerful influence upon the human race as this Republic, and for this reason alone. Empires have been established, a trail of blood has been drawn across the world, and vast aggregations of people have been brought under the rule of an emperor or a monarch since history began, but no people, no nation, in the history of the world has ever produced such a powerful effect for good upon the human race as this great Republic, and simply because of the doctrine laid down by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence.

Is it an old doctrine that all governments derive their just

powers from the consent of the governed? Some have said that it was a nursery rhyme sung around the cradle of the Republic. The doctrine is new. It was announced but a century ago, a day in the birth and life of nations, and yet this great Republic, boasting as we have on each recurring celebration of the event, proposes now to abandon it for the old doctrine and the old theory and the old idea of selfishness.

The Senator from Indiana [MR. BEVERIDGE] says that the Declaration of Independence does not contemplate that all governments must have the consent of the governed; that only those must have the consent of the governed that we think capable of self-government. Under that theory no people in the world are capable of self-government unless they first get our consent that they are fit to give their consent to a form of government which they wish to set up. The Senator from Connecticut [MR. PLATT] says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of some of the governed. Thus the Senator from Indiana would extend the doctrine of imperialism to whole nations of people, while the Senator from Connecticut would extend the doctrine of imperialism to every nation and every people, for he declares that the consent of some of the governed only is required.

Thus we drift back to the divine right of kings, to the doctrine that those who govern shall determine who of the governed shall give their consent. Thus construed, our glorious declaration becomes a mockery and a fraud. Therefore, when we meet each year to celebrate the instrument's birth into the world, the orators of the Republican party will have to explain its meaning and tell the multitude that our notions, our opinions, of the Declaration have been wrong for a hundred years.

Lincoln, in his speech at Springfield, on June 26, 1857, thus defined his notions of the Declaration of Independence:

In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of

earth seem rapidly combining against him, Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry.

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men; but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal-equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain, and it was placed in the Declaration not for that but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, as, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to all those who, in after times, might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

It seems to me that Lincoln, with his prophetic vision, must have seen this day, when prosperity, breeding tyrants, should undertake to declare that the Declaration of Independence no longer applies to anybody but the people whom we decide are capable of self-government. It stands to-day as a stumbling block; it is the hard nut to crack that the imperialists of this country find on this occasion, and it will confront them in this contest on every stump and on every platform in the land. Now, let us see what Stephen A. Douglas in that controversy said about the Declaration. I believe my imperialist friends must have been reading Douglas's argument. Said Lincoln:

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that "all men are created equal."

Now let us hear Judge Douglas's view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

"No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal-that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain-that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country."

Lincoln says:

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck, mangled ruin, it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

"They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain."

Why, according to this, not only negroes, but white people outside of Great Britain and America, were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included, to be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge's inferior races.

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects. But no; it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition! According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the King and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own in these United States.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere. But no; it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now-mere rubbish-only wadding left to rot on the battlefield after the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth" to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who