A strong and wise people will study its own failures no less than its triumphs, for there is wisdom to be learned from the study of both, of the mistake as well as of the success. (Sixth Annual Message, Washington, December 3, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 474; Nat. Ed. XV, 404.
See also Success.
Incessant falsehood inevitably produces in the public mind a certain disbelief in good men and a considerable disbelief in the charges against bad men; so that there results the belief that there are no men entirely good and no men entirely bad, and that they are all about alike and colored gray. (At Milwaukee, Wis., September 7, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XV, 460; Nat. Ed. XIII, 548.
See also Liars; Truth.
It makes small odds to any of us after we are dead whether the next generation forgets us, or whether a number of generations pass before our memory, steadily growing more and more dim, at last fades into nothing. On this point it seems to me that the only important thing is to be able to feel, when our time comes to go out into the blackness, that those survivors who care for us and to whom it will be a pleasure to think well of us when we are gone shall have that pleasure. Save in a few wholly exceptional cases, cases of men such as are not alive at this particular time, it is only possible in any event that a comparatively few people can have this feeling for any length of time. But it is a good thing if as many as possible feel it even for a short time, and it is surely a good thing that those whom we love should feel it as long as they too live. (To Oliver Wendell Holmes, December 5, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XXIII, 407; Bishop 1, 353.
____________. When America's history is written, when the history of the last century in America is written a hundred years hence, the name of no multimillionaire, who is nothing but a multimillionaire, will appear in that history, unless it appears in some foot-note to illustrate some queer vagary or extravagance. The men who will loom large in our history are the men of real achievement of the kind that counts. You can go over them—statesmen, soldiers, wise philanthropists . . . the writer, the man of science, of letters, of art, these are the men who will leave their mark on history.·(At Pacific Theological Seminary, Spring 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 582; Nat. Ed. XIII, 621.
The life of the State rests and must ever rest upon the life of the family and the neighborhood. Outlook , April 10, 1909, p. 807.
The man and woman who in peace-time fear or ignore the primary and vital duties and the high happiness of family life, who dare not beget and bear and rear the life that is to last when they are in their graves, have broken the chain of creation, and have shown that they are unfit for companionship with the souls ready for the Great Adventure. (Metropolitan, October 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 263; Nat. Ed. XIX, 243.
Nothing else takes the place or can take the place of family life, and family life cannot be really happy unless it is based on duty, based on recognition of the great underlying laws of religion and morality, of the great underlying laws of civilization, the laws which if broken mean the dissolution of civilization. (At Pacific Theological Seminary, Spring 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 599; Nat. Ed. XIII, 636.
I am sure that when men and women come to their senses and are able to separate the things that are essential from the things that are non-essential in life, they will go back to the understanding that there is no form of happiness on the earth, no form of success of any kind, that in any way approaches the happiness of the husband and the wife who are married lovers and the father and mother of plenty of healthy children. No other form of success— political, literary, artistic, commercial—in any way approaches the kind of success open to most men and most women, the success of the man in making a home and of the woman in keeping it, the success of both in dwelling therein with mutual love, respect, and forbearance, and in bringing up as they should be brought up the children who bless and make holy the home. (Outlook, April 8, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 161; Nat. Ed. XII, 192.
____________. The fundamental instincts are not only the basic but also the loftiest instincts in human nature. The qualities that make men and women eager lovers, faithful, duty-performing, hard-working. husbands and wives, and wise devoted fathers and mothers stand at the foundations of all possible social welfare, and also represent the loftiest heights of human happiness and usefulness. No other form of personal success and happiness or of individual service to the State compares with that which is represented by the love of the one man for the one woman, of their joint work as home- maker and home-keeper, and of their ability to bring up the childen that are theirs. (Metropolitan, October 1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 167; Nat. Ed. XIX, 160.
There are men so selfish, so short-sighted, or so brutal, that they speak and act as if the fact of the man's earning money for his wife and children, while the woman bears the children, rears them, and takes care of the house for them and for the man, somehow entitles the man to be known as the head of the family, instead of a partner on equal terms with his wife, and entitles him to the exclusive right to dispose of the money and, as a matter of fact, to dispose of it primarily in his own interest . . . Just as the prime work for the average man must be earning his livelihood and the livelihood of those dependent upon him, so the prime work for the average woman must be keeping the home and bearing and rearing her children . . . . The one way to honor this indispensable woman, the wife and mother, is to insist that she be treated as the full equal of her husband. (Metropolitan, May 1916.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 142, 146; Nat. Ed. XIX, 140, 143.
See also Birth Control; Children; Divorce; Eugenics; Home; Husbands; Marriage; Mother.
See Anti-Semitism; Bigotry; Religious Discrimination; Tolerance.
See China; Japan; Open Door; Orient; Philippines.
Hitherto agricultural research, instruction, and agitation have been directed almost exclusively toward the production of wealth from the soil. It is time to adopt in addition a new point of view. Hereafter another great task befo re the National Department of Agriculture and the similar agencies of the various States must be to foster agriculture for its social results, or, in other words, to assist in bringing about the best kind of life on the farm for the sake of producing the best kind of men. The Government must recognize the far-reaching importance of the study and treatment of the problems of farm life alike from the social and the economic standpoints; and the Federal and State Departments of Agriculture should cooperate, at every point. (At semicentennial celebration, founding of Agricultural Colleges, Lansing, Mich., May 31, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, I80; Nat. Ed. XVI, 137.
See also Agriculture — Department of.
To break up the big estates it might be best to try the graduated land tax, or else to equalize taxes as between used and unused agricultural land, which would prevent farm land being held for speculative purposes. There can without question be criticism of either proposal. If any better proposal can be made and tried we can cheerfully support it and be guided in our theories by the way it turns out. But we ought to insist on something being done—not merely talked about. Every one is agreed that we ought to get more people "back to the land"; but talk on the subject is utterly useless unless we put it in concrete shape and secure a "service test," even although it costs some money to furnish the means for doing what we say must be done. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 116; Nat. Ed. XIX, 118.
We have to grapple with one fact which has made both the strength and the weakness of the American farmer, and that is, his isolation. This isolation implies a lack both of the pleasure and of the inspiration which come from closer contact between people, and from a well-developed organization for social pleasures, for religious life, for education. On the other hand, it is to this isolation more than to anything else that we owe the strength of character so typical of the American farmer, who lives under a peculiarly individualistic system in the management alike of the farm and of the farm home. The successfully managed family farm gives to the father, the mother, and the children better opportunities for useful work and for a happy life than any other occupation. Our object must be, so far as practicable, to do away with the disadvantages which are due to the isolation of the family farm, while conserving its many and great advantages. We wish to keep at its highest point the peculiarly American quality of individual efficiency, while at the same time bringing about that co-operation which indicates capacity in the mass. Both qualities can be used to increase the industrial and ethical proficiency of our people, for there is much the individual only can do for himself, and there is much also which must be done by all combined because the individual cannot do it. Our aim must be to supplement individualism on the farm and in the home with an associated effort in those country matters that require organized working together. (Letter to Herbert Myrick read at Springfield, Mass., November 12, 1908.) Good Housekeeping, December 1908, pp. 625-626.
____________. It would be a calamity to have our farms occupied by a lower type of people than the hard- working, self-respecting, independent, and essentially manly and womanly men and women who have hitherto constituted the most typically American, and on the whole the most valuable, element in our entire nation. Ambitious native-born young men and women who now tend away from the farm must be brought back to it, and therefore they must have social as well as economic opportunities. Everything should be done to encourage the growth in the open farming country of such institutional and social movements as will meet the demand of the best type of farmers There should be libraries, assembly-halls, social organizations of all kinds. The school-building and the teacher in the school-building should throughout the country districts, be of the very highest type, able to fit the boys and girls not merely to live in, but thoroughly to enjoy and to make the most, of the country. The country church must be revived. All kinds of agencies, from rural free delivery to the bicycle and the telephone, should be ultilized to the utmost; good roads should be favored; everything should be done to make it easier for the farmer to lead the most active and effective intellectual, political, and economic life. . . .
The farm grows the raw material for the food and clothing of all our citizens; it supports directly almost half of them; and nearly half the children of the United States are born and brought up on the farms. How can the life of the farm family be made less solitary, fuller of opportunity, freer from drudgery, more comfortable, happier, and more attractive? Such a result is most earnestly to be desired. How can life on the farm be kept on the highest level, and where it is not already on that level, be so improved, dignified, and brightened as to awaken and keep alive the pride and loyalty of the farmer s boys and girls, of the farmer's wife, and of the farmer himself? How can a compelling desire to live on the farm be aroused in the children that are born on the farm? All these questions are of vital importance not only to the farmer, but to the whole nation. (At semicentennial celebration, founding of Agricultural Colleges, Lansing, Mich., May 31, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 177, 181; Nat. Ed. XVI, 134, 137.
____________. One of the chief difficulties is the failure of country life, as it exists at present, to satisfy the higher social and intellectual aspirations of country people. Whether the constant draining away of so much of the best elements in the rural population into the towns is due chiefly to this cause or to the superior business opportunities of city life may be open to question. But no one at all familiar with farm life throughout the United States can fail to recognize the necessity for building up the life of the farm upon its social as well as upon its productive side. It is true that country life has improved greatly in attractiveness, health, and comfort, and that the farmer's earnings are higher than they were. But city life is advancing even more rapidly, because of the greater attention which is being given by the citizens of the towns to their own betterment. For just this reason the introduction of effective agricultural cooperation throughout the United States is of the first importance. Where farmers are organized cooperatively they not only avail themselves much more readily of business opportunities and improved methods, but it is found that the organizations which bring them together in the work of their lives are used also for social and intellectual advancement. Special Message from the President of the United States transmitting the report of the Country Life Commission, February 9, 1909. (Washington, 1909), p. 5.
____________. Rural free delivery, taken in connection with the telephone, the bicycle, and the trolley, accomplishes much toward lessening the isolation of farm life and making it brighter and more attractive. In the immediate past the lack of just such facilities as these has driven many of the more active and restless young men and women from the farms to the cities; for they rebelled at loneliness and lack of mental companionship, It is unhealthy and undesirable for the cities to grow at the expense of the country; and rural free delivery is not only a good thing in itself, but is good because it is one of the causes which check this unwholesome tendency toward the urban concentration of our population at the expense of the country districts. It is for the same reason that we sympathize with and approve of the policy of building good roads. The movement for good roads is one fraught with the greatest benefit to the country districts. (Third Annual Message, Washington, December 7, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 220; Nat. Ed. XV, 189.
There is no problem whose successful solution is fraught with greater returns, in the line of citizenship, as well as in material results, than the problems of rural life. These include better farm methods, better rural schools, better roads, better farm financing, more economical methods of marketing, and better farm life conditions for the men, women, and children on whose welfare and success the progress and prosperity of the nation depends. In these problems and those of social and industrial justice is also embodied no small part of the problem of the cost of living, although this will also be in part helped by our treatment of the trusts. (At Chicago, December 10, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 477; Nat. Ed. XVII, 353.
See also City; Country Life Commission; Roads.
If there is one lesson taught by history it is that the permanent greatness of any State must ultimately depend more upon the Character of its country population than upon anything else. No growth of cities, no growth of wealth can make up for a loss in either the number or the character of the farming population. In the United States more than in almost any other country we should realize this and should prize our country population. When this nation began its independent existence it was as a nation of farmers. The towns were small and were for the most part mere seacoast trading and fishing ports. The chief industry of the country was agriculture, and the ordinary citizen was in some way connected with it. In every great crisis of the past a peculiar dependence has had to be placed upon the farming population; and this dependence has hitherto been justified. But it cannot be justified in the future if agriculture is permitted to sink in the scale as compared with other employments. We cannot afford to lose that pre-eminently typical American, the farmer who owns his own farm. (At semicentennial celebration, founding of Agricultural Colleges, Lansing, Mich., May 31, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 176; Nat. Ed. XVI, 133.
Our object must be (1) to make the tenant-farmer a landowner; (2) to eliminate as far as possible the conditions which produce the shifting, seasonal, tramp type of labor, and to give the farm laborer a permanent status, a career as a farmer, for which his school education shall fit him, and which shall open to him the chance of in the end earning the ownership in fee of his own farm; (3) to secure co-operation among the small landowners, so that their energies shall produce the best possible results; (4) by progressive taxation or in other fashion to break up and prevent the formation of great landed estates, especially in so far as they consist of unused agricultural land; (5) to make capital available for the farmers, and thereby put them more on an equality with other men engaged in business; (6) to care for the woman on the farm as much as for the man, and to eliminate the conditions which now so often tend to make her life one of gray and sterile drudgery; (7) to do this primarily through the farmer himself, but also, when necessary, by the use of the entire collective power of the people of the country; for the welfare of the farmer is the concern of all of us. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 114; Nat. Ed. XIX, 116.
The farmer, the producer of the necessities of life, can himself live only if he raises these necessities for a profit. On the other hand, the consumer who must have that farmer's product in order to live, must be allowed to purchase it at the lowest cost that can give the farmer his profit, and everything possible must be done to eliminate any middleman whose function does not tend to increase the cheapness of distribution of the product; and, moreover, everything must be done to stop all speculating, all gambling with the bread-basket which has even the slightest deleterious effect upon the producer and consumer. There must be legislation which will bring about a closer business relationship between the farmer and the consumer. (Before Progressive National Convention, Chicago, August 6, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 398; Nat. Ed. XVII, 288.
The true welfare of the nation is indissolubly bound up with the welfare of the farmer and the wage-worker—of the man who tills the soil, and of the mechanic, the handicraftsman, the laborer If we can insure the prosperity of these two classes we need not trouble ourselves about the prosperity of the rest. for that will follow as a matter of course. (At Pan-American Exposition, Buffalo, May 20, 1901.) Mem. Ed. XV, 314; Nat. Ed. XIII, 448.
____________. It should be one of our prime objects to put both the farmer and the mechanic on a higher plane of efficiency and reward, so
[The farmer] should be helped to cooperate in business fashion with his fellows, so that the money paid by the consumer for the product of the soil shall, to as large a degree as possible, go into the pockets of the man who raised that product from the soil. So long as the farmer leaves cooperative, activities, with their profit-sharing, to the city man of business, so long will the foundations of wealth be undermined and the comforts of enlightenment be impossible in the country communities. (Before Progressive National Convention, Chicago, August 6, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 378; Nat. Ed. XVII, 271.
____________. The welfare of the farmer stands as the bedrock welfare of the entire Commonwealth. Hitherto he has not received the full share of industrial reward and benefit to which he is entitled. He can receive it only as the result of organization and co-operation. Along certain lines the government must itself co- operate-with him; but normally most can be accomplished by co-operation among the farmers themselves, in marketing their products, in buying certain things which they particularly need, and in joint action along many lines. The States can wisely supplement such work of cooperation, but most of such work it cannot with wisdom itself undertake. (Before Republican State Convention, Saratoga Springs, N.Y., July 18, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 402; Nat. Ed. XIX, 364.
Whenever farmers themselves have the intelligence and energy to work through co-operative societies this is far better than having the state undertake the work. Community self- help is normally preferable to using the machinery of government for tasks to which it is unaccustomed. This applies to the ownership of granaries, slaughter-houses, and the like. There are in Europe co-operative farmers' associations which own and run at a profit many such institutions; and when this is shown to be the case, the other owners of such agencies face the accomplished fact; and it often becomes possible for the farmers then to deal with them on a satisfactory basis. In Europe these great farmer cooperative associations sometimes control the whole machinery by which their products are marketed. Each little district has its own co-operative group. The groups of all the districts in the state are united again in a large co- operative unit. In this way they do collectively what is beyond the power of any one farmer individually to accomplish. By sending their shipments to market they move them in great bulk. quantities at the lowest possible cost. They contract for long periods ahead and sell in the most advantageous market. Middlemen are eliminated. The labor of moving farm products is reduced to a minimum. . . .
A single farmer to-day is no match for the corporations, railroads, and business enterprises with which he must deal. Organized into cooperative associations, however, the farmers' power would be enormously increased. The principle upon which such co-operative groups are formed is very simple. The profits are divided partly in the shape of a rebate that is paid in proportion to the volume of business done for each member. The control, however, of the association does not depend upon the number of shares that a member may own but rests upon the democratic basis of one man, one vote. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 118-119; Nat. Ed. XIX, 119-120.
I know what the work and what the loneliness of a farmer's life too often are. I do not want to help the farmer or to help his wife in ways that will soften either, but I do want to join with both, and try to help them and help myself and help all of us, not by doing away with the need of work, but by trying to create a situation in which work will be more fruitful, and in which the work shall produce and go hand in hand with opportunities for self. development. (Outlook , October 12, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 438; Nat. Ed. XVII, 318.
We do not believe in confining governmental activity to the city. We believe that the problem of life in the open country is well-nigh-the gravest problem before this nation. The eyes and thoughts of those working for social and industrial reform have been turned almost exclusively toward the great cities, and toward the solution of the questions presented by their teeming myriads of people and by the immense complexity of their life. Yet nothing is more certain than that there can be no permanent prosperity unless the men and women who live in the open country prosper. The problems of the farm, of the village, of the country church, and the country school, the problems of getting most value out of and keeping most value in the soil, and of securing healthy and happy and well-rounded lives for those who live upon it, are fundamental to our national welfare. (Century Magazine, October 1913) Mem. Ed. XIX, 545; Nat. Ed. XVII, 402.
____________. We should . . . see that the help is given only to the man who is a real farmer and can really make use of it, but that it is extended in such a way as to be of genuine and material benefit.
This is the immediate need, and let us treat meeting this need as the opening wedge of a policy designed to prevent the growth of tenant farms at the expense of the farm owner who tills his own soil, and designed also to put a premium upon the permanent prosperity of the small farmer as compared with the big landowner. (February 15, 1918.) Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 105.
As regards furnishing capital to the farmer, the first need is that we shall understand that this is essential, and is recognized to be essential in most civilized lands outside of Russia and the United States, but especially in Denmark, France, and Germany. Our farmers must have working capital. The present laws for providing farm loans do not meet the most important case of all, that of the tenant-farmer, and do not adequately provide for the landowning farmer. An immense amount of new capital—an amount to be reckoned in billions of dollars—is needed for the proper development of the farms of the United States, in order that our farmers may pass from the position of underproduction per acre, may improve and fertilize their lands, and so stock them as both to secure satisfactory returns upon the money invested and also enormously to increase the amount of food produced, while permanently enhancing the value of the land. Lack of capital on the part of the farmer inevitably means soil exhaustion and therefore diminished production. The farmer who is to prosper must have capital; only the prosperous can really meet the needs of the consumer; and in this, as in every other kind of honest business, the only proper basis of success is benefit to both buyer and seller, producer and consumer. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI , 116; Nat. Ed. XIX, 118.
The number of tenants is rapidly growing. This is not good. Provision should be made to aid and increase the number of farm home- owners, for these make for a better agriculture and a stronger nation. (At Chicago, December 10, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 479; Nat. Ed. XVII, 354.
____________. In 1880, one farmer in four was a tenant; and at that time the tenant was still generally a young man to whom the position of tenant was merely an intermediate step between that of farm laborer and that of a farm owner. In 1910, over one farmer in three had become a tenant; and nowadays it becomes steadily more difficult to pass from the tenant to the owner stage. If the process continues unchecked, half a century hence we shall have deliberately permitted ourselves to plunge into the situation which brought chaos in Ireland, and which in England resulted in the complete elimination of the old yeomanry, so that nearly nine-tenth of English farmers to-day are tenants and the consequent class division is most ominous for the future. France and Germany are to-day distinctly better off than we are in this respect; and in New Zealand, where there is an excellent system of land distribution, only one-seventh of the farmers are tenants ….
The most important thing to do is to make the tenant-farmer a farm-owner. He must be financed so that he can acquire title to the land. In New Zealand the government buys land and sells it to small holders at the price paid with a low rate of interest. Perhaps our government could try this plan, or else could outright advance the money, charging three and a half per cent interest. Default in payments—which should of course be on easy terms—would mean that the land reverted to the government. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 112, 115; Nat. Ed. XIX, 114-115, 117.
See Cowardice ; International Fear
Readers of Borrow will recognize in the. . . title of the book, a phrase used by the heroine of Lavengro. Fear God; and take your own part! Fear God, in the true sense of the word, means love God, respect God, honor God; and all of this can only be done by loving our neighbor, treating him justly and mercifully, and in all ways endeavoring to protect him from injustice and cruelty; thus obeying, as far as our human frailty will permit, the great and immutable law of righteoushness. We fear God when we do justice to and demand justice for the men within our own borders. We are false to the teachings of righteousness if we do not do such justice and demand such justice. We must do it to the weak, and we must do it to the strong. We do not fear God if we show mean envy and hatred of those who are better off than we are; and still less do we fear God if we show a base arrogance toward and selfish lack of consideration for those who are less well off. We must apply the same standard of conduct alike to man and to woman, to rich man and to poor man, to employer and employee. (1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 231; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 199.
____________. Let us quit trying to fool ourselves by indulging in cheap self-assertion or even cheaper sentimentality. We must have a period of self- searching. We must endeavor to recover our lost self- respect. Let us show in practical fashion that we fear God and therefore deal justly with all men; and let us also show that we can take our own part; for if we cannot take our own part we may be absolutely certain that no one else will try to take it for us. (Metropolitan, February 1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 301; Nat. Ed. XVIII 258.
____________. Fear God and take your own part! This is another way of saying that a nation must have power and will for self-sacrifice and also power and will for self-protection. There must be both unselfishness and self-expression, each to supplement the other, neither wholly good without the other. The nation must be willing to stand disinterestedly for a lofty ideal and yet it must also be able to insist that its own rights be heeded by others. Evil will come if it does not possess the will and the power for unselfish action on behalf of non-utilitarian ideals and also the will and the power for self-mastery, self-control, self-discipline. It must possess those high and stern qualities of soul which will enable it to conquer softness and weakness and timidity and train itself to subordinate momentary pleasure, momentary profit, momentary safety to the larger future. (1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 528; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 453.
Every young politician should of course read the Federalist. It is the greatest book of the kind that has ever been written. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay would have been poorly equipped for writing it if they had not possessed an extensive acquaintance with literature, and in particular if they had not been careful students of political literature; but the great cause of the value of their writings lay in the fact that they knew by actual work and association what practical politics meant. They had helped to shape the political thought of the country, and to do its legislative and executive work, and so they were in a condition to speak understandingly about it. (Atlantic Monthly, August 1894.) Mem. Ed. XV, 57; Nat. Ed. XIII, 42.
____________. The sneer of the professional politician at the theorist; at the man who gets his knowledge from books, is so silly that one does not have to pay much heed to it, especially before an audience of this kind. Read "The Federalist." It is one of the greatest—I hardly know whether I would not be right to say that it is on the whole the greatest book—dealing with applied politics that there ever has been—the creation of Hamilton helped by Madison and Jay; and you will see a book there consisting of a series of pamphlets which had an incalculable effect in procuring us our present National Government, which could not have had that effect if, on the one hand, the three writers had not been men trained in theory of politics and if, on the other hand, they had not been themselves veteran practical politicians. (Before the Liberal Club, Buffalo, N. Y., September 10, 1895.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 279-280; Nat. Ed. XIV, 199.
Distrust of the people . . . was the fatally weak streak in Federalism. In a government such as ours it was a foregone conclusion that a party which did not believe in the people would sooner or later be thrown from power unless there was an armed break-up of the system. The distrust was felt, and of course excited corresponding and intense hostility. Had the Federalists been united, and had they freely trusted in the people, the latter would have shown that the trust was well founded; but there was no hope for leaders who suspected each other and feared their followers. (1888.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 512-513; Nat. Ed. VII, 443.
See also Morris, Gouverneur; Westward Movement.
Fellow-feeling, sympathy in the broadest sense, is the most important factor in producing a healthy political and social life. Neither our national nor our local civic life can be what it should be unless it is marked by the fellow-feeling, the mutual kindness, the mutual respect, the sense of they knew by actual work and association what practical politics meant. They had helped to shape the political thought of the country, and to do its legislative and executive work, and so they were in a condition to speak understandingly about it. (Atlantic Monthly, August 1894.) Mem. Ed. XV, 57; Nat. Ed. XIII, 42.
____________. The sneer of the professional politician at the theorist; at the man who gets his knowledge from books, is so silly that one does not have to pay much heed to it, especially before an audience of this kind. Read "The Federalist." It is one of the greatest—I hardly know whether I would not be right to say that it is on the whole the greatest book—dealing with applied politics that there ever has been—the creation of Hamilton helped by Madison and Jay; and you will see a book there consisting of a series of pamphlets which had an incalculable effect in procuring us our present National Government, which could not have had that effect if, on the one hand, the three writers had not been men trained in theory of politics and if, on the other hand, they had not been themselves veteran practical politicians. (Before the Liberal Club, Buffalo, N. Y., September 10, 1895.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 279-280; Nat. Ed. X1V,199.
Distrust of the people . . . was the fatally weak streak in Federalism. In a government such as ours it was a foregone conclusion that a party which did not believe in the people would sooner or later be thrown from power unless there was an armed break-up of the system. The distrust was felt, and of course excited corresponding and intense hostility. Had the Federalists been united, and had they freely trusted in the people, the latter would have shown that the trust was well founded; but there was no hope for leaders who suspected each other and feared their followers. (1888.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 512-513; Nat. Ed. VII, 443.
See also Morris, Gouverneur; Westward Movement .
Fellow-feeling, sympathy in the broadest sense, is the most important factor in producing a healthy political and social life. Neither our national nor our local civic life can be what it should be unless it is marked by the fellow-feeling, the mutual kindness, the mutual respect, the sense of common duties and common interests, which arise when men take the trouble to understand one another, and to associate together for a common object. (Century, January 1900.) Mem. Ed. XV, 404; Nat. Ed. XIII, 355.
____________. It is hard to benefit men from whom we are sundered by aloofness of spirit. The best work must be done by men whose sympathies are so broad and keen as literally to give fellow-feeling, and the understanding that can come only from fellow-feeling. Such fellow-feeling means a realization of the fundamental equality of all of us in need, in shortcoming, in aspiration—in short, in the fundamental things of our common brotherhood. Outlook , January 27, 1912, p. 163.
See also Brotherhood; Charity; Cooperation; Philanthropy
It is an excellent thing to win a triumph for good government at a given election; but it is a far better thing gradually to build up that spirit of fellow-feeling among American citizens, which, in the long run, is absolutely necessary if we are to see the principles of virile honesty and robust common sense triumph in our civic life. (Century, January 1900.) Mem. Ed. XV, 420; Nat. Ed. XIII, 368.
____________. I need hardly say how earnestly I believe that men should have a keen and lively sense of their obligations in politics, of their duty to help forward great causes, and to struggle for the betterment of conditions that are unjust to their fellows, the men and women who are less fortunate in life. But in addition to this feeling there must be a feeling of real fellowship with the other men and women engaged in the same task, fellowship of work, with fun to vary the work; for unless there is this feeling of fellowship, of common effort on an equal plane for a common end, it will be difficult to keep the relations wholesome and natural. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 75; Nat. Ed. XX, 64.
See also Citizenship; Civic Duty; Politics.
Religious fervor, or mere fervor for excellence in the abstract, is a great mainspring for good work in politics as in war, but it is no substitute for training, in either civil or military life; and if not accompanied by sound common sense and a spirit of broad tolerance, it may do as much damage as any other mighty force which is unregulated. (1900.) Mem. Ed. XIII, 425; Nat. Ed. X, 305.
See also Tolerance. Fiat Money. See Silver.
See Negro Suffrage.
Men cannot and will not fight well unless they are physically prepared; and they cannot and will not fight if, through the generations, they elaborately unfit themselves by weakening their own moral fibre. (Metropolitan, August 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 366; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 314.
Woe to the nation that does not make ready to hold its own in time of need against all who would harm it! And woe thrice over to the nation in which the average man loses the fighting edge, loses the power to serve as a soldier if the day of need should arise! (At University of Berlin, May 12, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 284; Nat. Ed. XII, 83.
We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life; but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. Outlook , May 7, 1910, p. 19.
A peaceful and commercial civilization is always in danger of suffering the loss of the virile fighting qualities without which no nation, however cultured, however refined, however thrifty and prosperous can ever amount to anything. (Forum, July 1894.) Mem. Ed. XV, 46; Nat. Ed. XIII, 32.
One of the prime dangers of civilization has always been its tendency to cause the loss of virile fighting virtues, of the fighting edge. When men get too comfortable and lead too luxurious lives, there is always danger lest the softness eat like an acid into their manliness of fibre. (At University of Berlin, May 12, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 275; Nat. Ed. XII, 76.
The curse of every ancient civilization was that its men in the end became unable to fight. Materialism, luxury, safety, even sometimes an almost modern sentimentality, weakened the fibre of each civilized race in turn; each became in the end a nation of pacifists, and then each was trodden under foot by some ruder people that had kept that virile fighting power the lack of which makes all other virtues useless and sometimes even harmful. (Outlook , February 14, 1917.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 48; Nat. Ed. XII, 169.
See also Bullying; Courage; Cowardice; Manliness; Manly Virtues; Military Training; Pacifist; Roman Empire ; Soldiers.
Filibustering is like lynch-law; it is something which in extreme and exceptional instances may be defensible, but which when followed systematically produces nothing but anarchy and outrage and the paralysis of all the governmental functions of the body in which it takes place. When followed out systematically it should receive the severest censure. (Before Federal Club, New York City, March 6, 1891.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 195; Nat. Ed. XIV, 130.
____________. Filibustering has now become a recognized term by which to describe tactics of delay and obstruction in a legislative body. Of course such tactics are wholly indefensible except on revolutionary grounds. They are essentially improper. It should always be understood that it is discreditable to indulge in them save under circumstances which would justify any revolutionary proceeding; and such circumstances cannot occur once in a generation. . . . People cannot have free institutions if they lack the wisdom, self- command, and common sense to make use of them; and the people who condone and approve filibustering show that they lack all these qualities, and to that extent have forfeited their claim to be considered capable of governing themselves. (Forum, December 1895.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 250; Nat. Ed. XIV, 175.
See also Debate; Representative Government .
See Banking; Currency; Gold Standard; Silver; Taxation.
Allow me to say that you have with extraordinary keenness struck the exact situation about the central bank when you say that our big financiers are for the most part speculators, which is not true of the European big financiers. This is the keynote to our troubles; that is, we have to contend with the men who are in speculative, and not in legitimate business; or the men who, while in legitimate business, make illegitimate or speculative proceedings one main branch of their business. (To White, January 13, 1908.) Allan Nevins, Henry White. Thirty Years of American Diplomacy. (Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1930), pp. 294-295.
See also Capitalists; Wall Street
The Federal statute regulating interstate traffic in game should be extended to include fish. New Federal fish-hatcheries should be established. The administration of the Alaskan fur-seal service should be vested in the Bureau of Fisheries. (Eighth Annual Message, Washington, Dec. 8, 1908.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 628; Nat. Ed. XV, 534.
See Elevated Railroad Legislation.
See Books—Lists of.
We have room in this country for but one flag, the Stars and Stripes, and we should tolerate no allegiance to any other flag, whether a foreign flag or the red flag or black flag. We have room for but one loyalty, loyalty to the United States. (1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 329; Nat. Ed. XIX, 301.
Flag-waving, and uttering and applauding speeches, and singing patriotic songs, are excellent in so far as they are turned into cool foresight in preparation and grim resolution to spend and be spent when once the day of trial has come; but they are merely mischievous if they are treated as substitutes for preparedness in advance and for hard, efficient work and readiness for self-sacrifice during the crisis itself. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 7; Nat. Ed. XIX, 6.
See also Allegiance; Americanism; Patriotism.
A flatterer is not a good companion for any man; and the public man who rises only by flattering his constituents is just as unsafe a companion for them. (Outlook, March 25, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 146; Nat. Ed. XVII, 104.
See also Truth.
Forests are the most effective preventers of floods, especially when they grow on the higher mountain slopes. The national forest policy, inaugurated primarily to avert or mitigate the timber famine which .is now beginning to be felt, has been effective also in securing partial control of floods by retarding the run-off and checking the erosion of the higher slopes within the national forests. Still the loss from soil wash is enormous. It is computed that one- fifth of a cubic mile in volume, or one billion tons in weight of the richest soil matter of the United States, is annually gathered in storm rivulets, washed into the rivers, and borne into the sea. The loss to the farmer is in effect a tax greater than all other land taxes combined, and one yielding absolutely no return. (Before Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis, Tenn., October 4, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 153; Nat. Ed. XVI, 116.
See also Conservation; Forest Problem; Inland Water-Ways; Mississippi River.
This morning Mother and I walked around the White House grounds as usual. I think I get more fond of flowers every year. The grounds are now at that high stage of beauty in which they will stay for the next two months. The buckeyes are in bloom, the pink dogwood, and the fragrant lilacs, which are almost the loveliest of the bushes; and then the flowers, including the lily-of-the- valley. (To Kermit Roosevelt, April 30, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 564; Nat. Ed. XIX, 506.
The foes of our own household are our worst enemies; and we can oppose them, not only by exposing and denouncing them, but by constructive work in planning and building for reforms which shall take into account both the economic and the moral factors in human advance. We of America can win to our great destiny only by service; not by rhetoric, and above all not by insincere rhetoric, and that dreadful mental double-dealing and verbal juggling which makes promises and repudiates them, and says one thing at one time, and the directly opposite thing at another time. Our service must be the service of deeds, the deeds of war and the deeds of peace. (1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 8; Nat. Ed. XIX, 7.
____________. We must . . . remember that the game of football a rather less homicidal pastime. I do not wish to speak as a mere sentimentalist; but I do not think that killing should be a normal accompaniment of the game, and while we develop our football from Rugby, I wish we could go back and undevelop it, and get it nearer your game. I am not qualified to speak as an expert on the subject, but I wish we could make it more open and eliminate some features that certainly tend to add to the danger of the game as it is played in America now. On the Pacific slope we have been going back to your type of Rugby football. I would not have football abolished for anything, but I want to have it changed, just because I want to draw the teeth of the men who always clamor for the abolition of any manly game. I wish to deprive those whom I put in the mollycoddle class, of any argument against good sport. (At the Cambridge Union, Cambridge, Eng., May 26, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XV, 505; Nat. Ed. XIII, 573.
See also Sports.
I have seen the correspondence between Archbold and Foraker, published in the morning papers. Now, it is difficult for any man to advise another as to a given act in a campaign. Personally, if I were running for President, I should in view of these disclosures decline to appear upon the platform with Foraker, and I would have it understood in detail what is the exact fact, namely, that Mr. Foraker's separation from you and from me has been due not in the least to a difference of opinion on the negro question, which was merely a pretense, but to the fact that he was the attorney of the corporations, their hired representative in public life, and that therefore he naturally and inevitably opposed us in every way; that he opposed us when it came to appointments on the bench just as he opposed legislation that we asked for in Congress. I think it essential, if the bad effect upon the canvass of those disclosures is to be obviated, that we should show unmistakably how completely loose from us Mr. Foraker is. If this is not shown affirmatively, there is danger that the people will not see it and will simply think that all Republicans are tarred with the same brush. (To William H. Taft, September 19, 1908.) .Mem. Ed. XXIV, 112; Bishop II, 96.
____________. There are certain [issues] as to which you and I will continue to differ, but if I ever get the chance to speak publicly, I shall elaborate what I said in speaking of you in the libel suit. Not only do I admire your entire courage and straightforwardness (in the railway-rate legislation I respected you a thousand times more than I did many of the men who voted for the bill), but I also grew steadily more and more to realize your absolute Americanism, and your capacity for generosity and disinterestedness. Besides, you knew the need that the freeman shall be able to fight, under penalty of ceasing to be a freeman. Too many of our representatives in the Senate and the Lower House could not be persuaded to take any interest in any matter in which they or their districts were not personally concerned. But, as far as you were concerned when the question came up of dealing with the Philippines or Porto Rico or Panama, or the navy, or anything involving America's international good name, or the doing of our duty to help people who had no champion; I knew that if I could convince you that my view was right I could count upon your ardent championship of the cause. (To Foraker, June 28, 1916.) Julia B. Foraker, I Would Live It Again. (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1932), pp. 316-317. FORCE. Force unbacked by righteousness is abhorrent. The effort to substitute for it vague declamation for righteousness unbacked by force is silly. The policeman must be put back of the judge in international law just as he is back of the judge in municipal law. The effective power of civilization must be put back of civilization's collective purpose to secure reasonable justice between nation and nation. (New York Times, September 27, 1914.) .Mem. Ed. XX, 7; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 6.
____________. The only way in which successfully to oppose wrong which is backed by might is to put over against it right which is backed by might. (1916.) .Mem. Ed. XX, 261; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 224.
Merely to trust to public opinion without organized force back of it is silly. Force must be put back of justice, and nations must not shrink from the duty of proceeding by any means that are necessary against wrong-doers. It is the failure to recognize these vital truths that has rendered the actions of our government during the last few years impotent to preserve world peace and fruitful only in earning for us the half-veiled derision of other nations. (New York Times, November 8, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 85; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 74.
If it is impossible in the immediate future to devise some working scheme by which force shall be put behind righteousness in disinterested and effective fashion, where international wrongs are concerned, then the only alternative will be for each free people to keep itself in shape with its own strength to defend its own rights and interests, and meanwhile to do all that can be done to help forward the slow growth of sentiment which is assuredly, although very gradually, telling against international wrong-doing and violence. (New York Times, October 18, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 66; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 57.
See also League For Peace; Right; Treaties; War.
For Mr. Ford personally, I feel not merely friendliness, but in many respects a very genuine admiration. There is much in the methods and very much in the purposes, with which he has conducted his business, notably in his relations to his working people, that commands my hearty sympathy and respect. Moreover, there is always something attractive to an American in the career of a man who has raised himself from the industrial ranks, until he is one of the captains of industry. But all that I have thus said, can with truth be said of many, perhaps of most of the Tories of the Revolutionary War and of many or most of the pacifists of the Civil War, the extremists among whom were popularly known as Copperheads. Many of these Tories and Civil War pacifists were men of fine character and upright purpose, who sincerely believed in the cause they advocated. They included all the men who were the pacifists of their day. These pacifists who formed so large a proportion of the old- time Tories and Copperheads abhorred and denounced the militarism of Washington in 1776 and of Lincoln in 1861. They were against all war and all preparedness for war. (At Detroit, Mich., May 19, 1916.) Theodore Roosevelt, Righteous Peace through National Preparedness, pp. 4-5.
____________. If I get to Detroit it will be a great pleasure to accept your invitation to look at the work you are doing. As I have so frequently stated, I believe you are one of the men, the successful business men, who can do far more than any outsiders like myself in bringing about the right relations between the men who work with their hands, and those who supply the capital or the management in the business. But, my dear Mr.
Ford, I trust you have not extended this invitation in ignorance of the position I have publicly taken about your attitude on behalf of pacifism. If you did not know my attitude when you wrote, I shall of course understand absolutely if you withdraw the invitation, for, as I supposed you knew, I am emphatically out of sympathy with you (just as I am radically out of sympathy with my friend, Miss Addams) as regards this pacifist agitation. If you do know my attitude and have sent the invitation knowing it, I wish you would give me the chance when I see you to make a very earnest appeal to you to use your good influence, not on behalf of a peace that will not bring righteousness, but on behalf of righteousness; for if that is obtained the peace worth having comes with it. (To Henry Ford, January 29, 1916.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 469; Bishop II, 399.
I trust that Congress will pass a law refusing to allow a newspaper to be published in German or in the language of any other of our opponents while this war lasts, so that we shall know just what they are saying and doing. (Statement of August 10, 1917.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 509; Bishop II, 435.
See also Americanization; Language.
Nine-tenths of wisdom is to be wise in time, and at the right time; and my whole foreign policy was based on the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis to make it improbable that we would run into serious trouble. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 577; Nat. Ed. XX, 496.
The United States of America has not the option as to whether it will or will not play a great part in the world. It must play a great part. All that it can decide is whether it will play that part well or badly. And it can play it badly if it adopts the rôle either of the coward or of the bully. Nor will it help it in the end to avoid either part if it play the other. It must avoid both. Democratic America can be true to itself, true to the great cause of freedom and justice, only if it shows itself ready and willing to resent wrong from the strong, and scrupulously desirous of doing generous justice to both strong and weak. (Outlook, April 1, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 151; Nat. Ed. XVII, 108.
____________. We have become a great nation, forced by the fact of its greatness into relations with the other nations of the earth, and we must behave as beseems a people with such responsibilities. Toward all other nations, large and small, our attitude must be one of cordial and sincere friendship. We must show not only in our words, but in our deeds, that we are earnestly desirous of securing their good-will by acting toward them in a spirit of just and generous recognition of all their rights. But justice and generosity in a nation, as in an individual, count most when shown not by the weak but by the strong. While ever careful to refrain from wronging others, we must be no less insistent that we are not wronged ourselves. We wish peace, but we wish the peace of justice, the peace of righteousness. We wish it because we think it is right and not because we are afraid. No weak nation that acts manfully and justly should ever have cause to fear us, and no strong power should ever be able to single us out as a subject for insolent aggression. (Inaugural Address as President, Washington, March 4, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 312; Nat. Ed. XV, 267.
A policy of blood and iron is sometimes very wicked; but it rarely does as much harm, and never excites as much derision, as a policy of milk and water—and it comes dangerously near flattery to call the foreign policy of the United States under President Wilson and Mr. Bryan merely one of milk and water. Strength at least commands respect; whereas the prattling feebleness that dares not rebuke any concrete wrong, and whose proposals for right are marked by sheer fatuity, is fit only to excite weeping among angels and among men the bitter laughter of scorn. (New York Times, November 1, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 78; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 66.
____________. The policy of milk-and-water is an even worse policy than the policy of blood-and-iron. To sink a hundred American men, women, and children on the Lusitania, in other words, to murder them, was an evil thing; but it was not quite as evil and it was nothing like as contemptible as it was for this nation to rest satisfied with governmental notes of protests couched in elegant English, and with vaguely implied threats which were not carried out. When a man has warned another man not to slap has wife's face, and the other man does it, the gentleman who has given the warning
____________. For some years we have as a people shown an appalling unfitness for world leadership on behalf of the democratic ideal; for, especially during the last three years, we have played a mean and sordid part among the nations, and have been faithless to our obligations and to all the old-time ideals of American patriotism. (Metropolitan, May 1916.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 149; Nat. Ed. XIX, 146.
As the nation, and not the several States, have to deal with foreign powers, the nation should have complete control over all questions likely to cause trouble with foreign powers, and therefore should have the complete and fully recognized ability to protect all aliens in their treaty rights. Yet in actual practice occasions have not infrequently arisen which have shown rather pitiable national shortcomings in this respect. (Outlook , April 1, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 152; Nat. Ed. XVII, 109.
America should have a coherent policy of action toward foreign powers, and this should primarily be based on the determination never to give offense when it can be avoided, always to treat other nations justly and courteously, and, as long as present conditions exist, to be prepared to defend our own rights ourselves. No other nation will defend them for us. No paper guaranty or treaty will be worth the paper on which it is written if it becomes to the interest of some other power to violate it, unless we have strength, and courage and ability to use that strength, back of the treaty. Every public man, every writer who speaks with wanton offensiveness of a foreign power or of a foreign people, whether he attacks England or France or Germany, whether he assails the Russians or the Japanese, is doing an injury to the whole American body politic. We have plenty of shortcomings at home to correct before we start out to criticise the shortcomings of others. Now and then it becomes imperatively necessary in the interests of humanity, or in our own vital interest, to act in a manner which will cause offense to some other power. This is a lamentable necessity; but when the necessity arises we must meet it and act as we are honorably bound to act, no matter what offense is given. We must always weigh well our duties in such a case, and consider the rights of others as well as our own rights, in the interest of the world at large. If after such consideration it is evident that we are bound to act along a certain line of policy, then it is mere weakness to refrain from doing so because offense is thereby given. But we must never act wantonly or brutally, or without regard to the essentials of genuine morality—a morality considering our interests as well as the interests of others, and considering the interests of future generations as well as of the present generation. We must so conduct ourselves that every big nation and every little nation that behaves itself shall never have to think of us with fear, and shall have confidence not only in our justice but in our courtesy. (Outlook , September 23, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 28; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 24.
____________. Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln and Grant have occupied exactly the right position as regards our duty in international affairs; and Jefferson, Buchanan and Wilson exactly the wrong position. The way to help us in the concrete to do what is right is to point out in the concrete the men at the head of affairs who do what is wrong. The War of 1812 was for us at best a draw and was fulfilled with humiliation and disgrace because of Jefferson's attitude and above all because Jefferson's attitude represented the American attitude. If men like Washington had been in charge of this government for the first sixteen years of the nineteenth century the War of 1812 would have been an overwhelming victory and probably would have been closed in 1812. Wilson and Bryan at the present day are contending for the proud pre-eminence of doing everything in their power in the last two years and a half to bring this nation to both impotence and infamy in its international relations—and Taft by his universal arbitration treaties and his Mexican policy ably paved the way for them. (To Julian Street, June 23, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 452; Bishop II, 384.
We cannot sit huddled within our own borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond. Such a policy would defeat even its own end; for as the nations grow to have wider and wider interests and are brought into closer and closer contact, if we are to hold our own in the struggle for naval and commercial supremacy, we must build up our power within our own borders. (Before the Hamilton Club, Chicago, April 10, 1899.) Mem. Ed. XV, 272; Nat. Ed. XIII, 323.
____________. It is continually growing less and less possible for any great civilized nation to live purely for and by itself. Exactly as steam and electricity and the extraordinary agencies of modern industrialism have rendered more complex and more intimate the relations of all the individuals within each nation, so the same causes have rendered more complex and more intimate the relations of the various civilized nations with one another. (At New York City, October 3, 1913.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 391; Nat. Ed. XVI, 292.
____________. The United States cannot again completely withdraw into its shell. We need not mix in all European quarrels nor assume all spheres of interest everywhere to be ours, but we ought to join with the other civilized nations of the world in some scheme that in a time of great stress would offer a likelihood of obtaining just settlements that will avert war. (Kansas City Star, November 17, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 445; Nat. Ed. XIX, 401.
Tame submission to foreign aggression of any kind is a mean and unworthy thing; but it is even meaner and more unworthy to bluster first, and then either submit or else refuse to make those preparations which can alone obviate the necessity for submission. (Address as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Naval War College, June 1897.) Mem. Ed. XV, 253; Nat. Ed. XIII, 193.
____________. To be rich, unarmed, and yet insolent and aggressive, is to court well-nigh certain disaster. The only safe and honorable rule of foreign policy for the United States is to show itself courteous toward other nations, scrupulous not to infringe upon their rights, and yet able and ready to defend its own. This nation is now on terms of the most cordial good-will with all other nations. Let us make it a prime object of our policy to preserve these conditions. To do so it is necessary on the one hand to mete out a generous justice to all other peoples and show them courtesy and respect; and on the other hand, as we are yet a good way off from the millennium, to keep ourselves in such shape as to make it evident to all men that we desire peace because we think it is just and right and not from motives of weakness or timidity. (At Cairo, Ill., October 3, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 16; Nat. Ed. XVI, 14.
____________. Whenever on any point we come in contact with a foreign power, I hope that we shall always strive to speak courteously and respectfully of that foreign power. Let us make it evident that we intend to do justice. Then let us make it equally evident that we will not tolerate injustice being done to us in return. Let us further make it evident that we use no words which we are not prepared to back up with deeds, and that while our speech is always moderate, we are ready and willing to make it good. Such an attitude will be the surest possible guarantee of that self-respecting peace, the attainment of which is and must ever be the prime aim of a self-governing people. (At Minnesota State Fair, September 2, 1901.) Mem. Ed. XV, 335; Nat. Ed. XIII, 475.
The importance of a promise lies not in making it, but in keeping it; and the poorest of all positions for a nation to occupy in such a matter is readiness to make impossible promises at the same time that there is failure to keep promises which have been made, which can be kept, and which it is discreditable to break. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 613; Nat. Ed. XX, 527.
No nation can claim rights without acknowledging the duties that go with the rights. It is a contemptible thing for a great nation to render itself impotent in international action, whether because of cowardice or sloth, or sheer inability or unwillingness to look into the future. It is a very wicked thing for a nation to do wrong to others. But the most contemptible and most wicked course of conduct is for a nation to use offensive language or be guilty of offensive actions toward other people and yet fail to hold its own if the other nation retaliates; and it is almost as bad to undertake responsibilities and then not fulfil them. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 571; Nat. Ed. XX, 491.
The dealings of the United States with foreign powers should be considered from no partisan standpoint. Our party divisions affect ourselves purely; and when we are brought face to face with a foreign nation we should act as Americans merely. (The Independent, August 11, 1892.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 208; Nat. Ed. XIV, 140.
See also Alliances; Ambassadors; Arbitration; Big Stick; Diplomacy; Hague Court; "Hands Across The Sea"; International Disputes; International Duties; International Justice; International Relations; League Of Nations; Peace; States' Rights; Wilson, Woodrow; World War.
See Consular Service; Diplomatic Service.
I think there is only one thing more foolish than blind imitation of something that has done well abroad, and that is the narrow spirit that refuses to adopt anything just because it comes from abroad. (Before Iowa State Teachers' Association, Des Moines, Nov. 4, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 451; Nat. Ed. XVI, 337.
See also Cosmopolitans; Expatriates.
The attitude of foreigners toward us is a matter of slight consequence. What really does concern us is the queer strained humility toward foreigners, and especially toward Englishmen, shown by certain small groups of Americans. We respect Englishmen; but we are a different people. It is right that others should worship at their own shrines; we ourselves worship at ours; but why should a few of our number run after strange gods, ignoring their own? (Cosmopolitan, December 1892.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 366; Nat. Ed. XII, 301.
See also Aliens; American People; Immigration.
I have doubled or quadrupled the forest reserves of the country; have put through the reorganization of the forest service, placing it under the Agricultural Department; and I may add as a small incident, have created a number of reservations for preserving the wild things of nature, the beasts and birds as well as the trees. (To Sidney Brooks, December 28, 1908.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 151; Bishop II, 129.
____________. The practical common sense of the American people has been in no way made more evident during the last few years than by the creation and use of a series of large land reserves—situated for the most part on the great plains and among the mountains of the West—intended to keep the forests from destruction, and therefore to conserve the water- supply. These reserves are, and should be, created primarily for economic purposes. The semiarid regions can only support a reasonable population under conditions of the strictest economy and wisdom in the use of the water-supply, and in addition to their other economic uses the forests are indispensably necessary for the preservation of the water-supply and for rendering possible its useful distribution throughout the proper seasons. In addition, however, to this economic use of the wilderness, selected portions of it have been kept here and there in a state of nature, not merely for the sake of preserving the forests and the water, but for the sake of preserving all its beauties and wonders unspoiled by greedy and shortsighted vandalism. What has been actually accomplished in the Yellowstone Park affords the best possible object-lesson as to the desirability and practicability of establishing such wilderness reserves. This reserve is a natural breeding-ground and nursery for those stately and beautiful haunters of the wilds which have now vanished from so many of the great forests, the vast lonely plains, and the high mountain ranges, where they once abounded. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 271-272; Nat. Ed. III, 89-90.
Wise forest protection does not mean the withdrawal of forest resources, whether of wood, water, or grass, from contributing their full share to the welfare of the people, but, on the contrary, gives the assurance of larger and more certain supplies. The fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use. Forest protection is not an end of itself; it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend upon them. The preservation of our forests is an imperative business necessity. (First Annual Message, Washington, December 3, 1901.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 118; Nat. Ed. XV, 102.
If the present rate of forest destruction is allowed to continue, with nothing to offset it, a timber famine in the future is inevitable. Fire, wasteful and destructive forms of lumbering, and the legitimate use, taken together, are destroying our forest resources far more rapidly than they are being replaced. It is difficult to imagine what such a timber famine would mean to our resources. And the period of recovery from the injuries which a timber famine would entail would be measured by the slow growth of the trees themselves. Remember that you can prevent such a timber famine occurring by wise action taken in time, but once the famine occurs there is no possible way of hurrying the growth of the trees necessary to relieve it. You have got to act in time or else the nation would have to submit to prolonged suffering after it had become too late for forethought to avail. (Before Forest Congress, Washington, D. C., January 5, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 141; Nat. Ed. XVI, 105.
____________. We are consuming our forests three times faster than they are being reproduced. Some of the richest timber-lands of this continent have already been destroyed, and not replaced, and other vast areas are on the verge of destruction. Yet forests, unlike mines, can be so handled as to yield the best results of use, without exhaustion, just like grain-fields. (Before Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis, Tenn., October 4, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 155; Nat. Ed. XVI, 117.
First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one moment what is the object of the forest policy. Primarily that object is not to preserve forests because they are beautiful—though that is good in itself—not to preserve them because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness—though that too is good in itself—but the primary object of the forest policy as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes, is part of the traditional policy of home-making of our country. Every other consideration comes as secondary. The whole effort of the government in dealing with the forests must be directed to this end, keeping in view the fact that it is not only necessary to start the homes as prosperous, but to keep them so. That is the way the forests have need to be kept. You can start a prosperous home by destroying the forest, but you do not keep it. (Before Society of American Foresters, Washington, March 26, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 127.
Continual efforts are made by demagogues and by unscrupulous agitators to excite hostility to the forest policy of the government; and needy men who are short-sighted and unscrupulous join in the cry, and play into the hands of the corrupt politicians who do the bidding of the big and selfish exploiters of the public domain. One device of these politicians is through their representatives in Congress to cut down the appropriation for the forest service; and in consequence the administrative heads of the service, in the effort to be economical, are sometimes driven to the expedient of trying to replace the permanently employed experts by short-term men, picked up at haphazard, and hired only for the summer season. This is all wrong: first, because the men thus hired give very inferior service; and, second, because the government should be a model employer, and should not set a vicious example in hiring men under conditions that tend to create a shifting class of laborers who suffer from all the evils of unsteady employment, varied by long seasons of idleness. (1916.) Mem. Ed. IV, 9; Nat. Ed. III, 192.
The forest problem is in many ways the most vital internal problem of the United States. The more closely this statement is examined the more evident its truth becomes. In the arid regions of the West agricultural prosperity depends first of all upon the available water supply. Forest protection alone can maintain the stream flow necessary for irrigation in the West and prevent floods destructive to agriculture and manufactures in the East. The relation between forests and the whole mining industry is an extremely intimate one, for mines cannot be developed without timber, and usually not without timber close at hand. . . . The very existence of lumbering, the fourth great industry of the United States, depends upon the success of your work and our work as a nation in putting practical forestry into effective operation. As it is with mining and lumbering, so it is in only less degree with transportation, manufacture, and commerce in general. The relation of all these industries to the forests is of the most intimate and dependent kind. . . . The forest resources of our country are already seriously depleted. They can be renewed and maintained only by the co-operation of the forester and the lumberman. (Before Society of American Foresters, Washington, March 26, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 129.
It is not only necessary to establish a great system of storage reservoirs to prevent the flood waste of the waters; it is also necessary to preserve the forests on the mountains and among the foothills. This means that, in the first place, there must be a wide extension of the existing system of forest reserves, and, in the second place, that these forest reserves must be managed aright. They cannot be so managed while there is the present division among federal departments of the duties, and therefore, of the responsibilities, of their management. We are just getting to understand what is involved in the preservation of our forests. Not only is an industry at stake which employs more than half a million of men, the lumber industry, but the whole prosperity and development of the West, and indeed ultimately of the entire country, is bound up with the preservation of the forests. Right use of the forests means the perpetuation of our supply both of wood and of water. Therefore we cannot afford to be satisfied with anything short of expert and responsible management of the national forest reserves and other national forest interests. The forest reserves must be cared for by the best trained foresters to be had, just as the storage reservoirs must be built and maintained by the best engineers. There is the same need of trained skill in handling the forests in your best interests as there is in building the great dams which will some day bring population and abounding prosperity to vast stretches of so-called desert in the West. (Letter of November 16, 1900; read before National Irrigation Congress, Chicago.) The Forester, December 1900, p. 289.
Forest reserves are created for two principal purposes. The first is to preserve the water-supply. This is their most important use. The principal users of the water thus preserved are irrigation ranchers and settlers, cities and towns to whom their municipal water-supplies are of the very first importance, users and furnishers of water- power, and the users of water for domestic, manufacturing, mining, and other purposes. All these are directly dependent upon the forest reserves. The second reason for which forest reserves are created is to preserve the timber-supply for various classes of wood users. Among the more important of these are settlers under the reclamation act and other acts, for whom a cheap and accessible supply of timber for domestic uses is absolutely necessary; miners and prospectors, who are in serious danger of losing their timber-supply by fire or through export by lumber companies when timber-lands adjacent to their mines pass into private ownership; lumbermen, transportation companies, builders, and commercial interests in general. (Fourth Annual Message, Washington, December 6, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 274; Nat. Ed. XV, 235-236.
See also Arbor Day; Conservation; Natural Resources; Pinchot, Gifford; Trees.
It is probably true that the large majority of the fortunes that now exist in this country have been amassed not by injuring our people, but as an incident to the conferring of great benefit fits upon the community; and this, no matter what may have been the conscious purpose of those amassing them. There is but the scantiest justification for most of the outcry against the men of wealth as such; and it ought to be unnecessary to state that any appeal which directly or indirectly leads to suspicion and hatred among ourselves, which tends to limit opportunity, and therefore to shut the door of success against poor men of talent, and, finally, which entails the possibility of lawlessness and violence, is an attack upon the fundamental properties of American citizenship. (At Minnesota State Fair, September 2, 1901.) Mem. Ed. XV, 332; Nat. Ed. XIII, 472.
____________. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty. Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. (At Washington, April 14, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 578; Nat. Ed. XVI, 421.
____________. Great fortunes are usually made under very complex conditions both of effort and of surrounding, and the mere fact of the complexity makes it difficult to deal with the new conditions thus created. The contrast offered in a highly specialized industrial community between the very rich and the very poor is exceedingly distressing, and while under normal conditions the acquirement of wealth by an individual is necessarily of great incidental benefit to the community as a whole, yet this is by no means always the case. In our great cities there is plainly in evidence much wealth contrasted with much poverty, and some of the wealth has been acquired, or is used, in a manner for which there is no moral justification. . . . Probably the large majority of the fortunes that now exist in this country have been amassed, not by injuring mankind, but as an incident to the conferring of great benefits on the community—whatever the conscious purpose of those amassing them may have been. The occasional wrongs committed or injuries endured are on the whole far outweighed by the mass of good which has resulted. The true questions to be asked are: Has any given individual been injured by the acquisition of wealth by any man? Were the rights of that individual, if they have been violated, insufficiently protected by law? If so, these rights, and all similar rights, ought to be guaranteed by additional legislation. (Annual Message as Governor, Albany, January 3, 1900.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 46-47; Nat. Ed. XV, 40-41.
It is our clear duty to see, in the interest of the people, that there is adequate supervision and control over the business use of the swollen fortunes of today, and also wisely to determine the conditions upon which these fortunes are to be transmitted and the percentage that they shall pay to the government whose protecting arm alone enables them to exist. Only the nation can do this work. To relegate it to the States is a farce, and is simply another way of saying that it shall not be done at all. (At Harrisburg, Pa., October 4, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 85; Nat. Ed. XV1, 71.
I wish it were in my power to devise some scheme to make it increasingly difficult to heap them [large fortunes] up beyond a certain amount. As the difficulties in the way of such a scheme are very great, let us at least prevent their being bequeathed after death or given during life to any one man in excessive amount. (Letter of April 26, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 563; Nat. Ed. XX, 484.
____________. We believe that great fortunes, even when accumulated by the man himself, are of limited benefit to the country, and that they are detrimental rather than beneficial when secured through inheritance. We therefore believe in a heavily progressive inheritance tax—a tax which shall bear very lightly on small or ordinary inheritances, but which shall bear very heavily upon all inheritances of colossal size. We believe in a heavily graded income tax, along the same lines, but discriminating sharply in favor of earned, as compared with unearned, incomes (Century Magazine, October 1913.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 549; Nat. Ed. XVII, 405.
See also Inheritance Tax; Millionaires; Money; W Ealth.
The American people should insist that these fourteen points and any other points are stated in clear-cut language, and that there be a full understanding of just what is meant by them and a full knowledge of how far the American people approve of them before any foreign power is permitted to think that they represent America's position at the peace council. (Kansas City Star, October 17, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 417; Nat. Ed. XIX, 378.
____________. Our people ought emphatically to repudiate the "fourteen points" offered by President Wilson as a satisfactory basis for peace. We ought likewise to repudiate all of his similar proposals (some of his utterances have been satisfactory, but all of these have been contradicted by his other utterances, and no one can be sure which set of utterances will receive his ultimate adherence). Some of these fourteen points are mischievous under any interpretation. Most of them are worded in language so vague and so purely rhetorical that they may be construed with equal justice as having diametrically opposite meanings. Germany and Austria have eagerly approved these fourteen points; our own pro-Germans, pacifists, socialists, anarchists, and professional internationalists also approve them; but good citizens, who are also sound American nationalists, will insist upon all of them being put into straightforward and definite language—and then will reject most of them. (1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 256; Nat. Ed. XIX, 238.
The first point forbids "all private international understandings of any kind," and says there must be "open covenants of peace, openly arrived at," and announces that "diplomacy shall always proceed frankly in the public view." . . . This first one of the fourteen points offers such an illuminating opportunity to test promise as to the future by performance in the present that I have considered it at some length. . . .
The second in the fourteen points deals with freedom of the seas. It makes no distinction between freeing the seas from murder like that continually practiced by Germany and freeing them from blockade of contraband merchandise, which is the practice of a right universally enjoyed by belligerents, and at this moment practiced by the United States. Either this proposal is meaningless or it is a mischievous concession to Germany.
The third point promises free trade among all the nations, unless the words are designedly used to conceal President Wilson's true meaning. This would deny to our country the right to make a tariff to protect its citizens, and especially its working men, against Germany or China or any other country. Apparently this is desired on the ground that the incidental domestic disaster to this country will prevent other countries from feeling hostile to us. The supposition is foolish. England practised free trade and yet Germany hated England particularly, and Turkey practised free trade without deserving or obtaining friendship from any one except those who desired to exploit her.
The fourth point provides that this nation, like every other, is to reduce its armaments to the lowest limit consistent with domestic safety. Either this is language deliberately used to deceive or else it means that we are to scrap our army and navy and prevent riot by means of a national constabulary, like the State constabulary of New York or Pennsylvania.
Point five proposes that colonial claims shall all be treated on the same basis. Unless the language is deliberately used to deceive, this means that we are to restore to our brutal enemy the colonies taken by our Allies while they were defending us from this enemy. The proposition is probably meaningless. If it is not, it is monstrous.
Point six deals with Russia. It probably means nothing, but if it means anything, it provides that America shall share on equal terms with other nations, including Germany, Austria, and Turkey, in giving Russia assistance. The whole proposition would not be particularly out of place in a college sophomore s exercise in rhetoric.
Point seven deals with Belgium and is entirely proper and commonplace.
Point eight deals with Alsace-Lorraine and is couched in language which betrays Mr. Wilson's besetting sin—his inability to speak in a straightforward manner. He may mean that Alsace and Lorraine must be restored to France, in which case he is right. He may mean that a plebiscite must be held, in which case he is playing Germany's evil game.
Point nine deals with Italy, and is right.
Point ten deals with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and is so foolish that even President Wilson has since abandoned it.
Point eleven proposes that we, together with other nations, including apparently Germany, Austria, and Hungary, shall guarantee justice in the Balkan Peninsula. As this would also guarantee our being from time to time engaged in war over matters in which we had no interest whatever, it is worth while inquiring whether President Wilson proposes that we wage these wars with the national constabulary to which he desired to reduce our armed forces.
Point twelve proposes to perpetuate the infamy of Turkish rule in Europe, and as a sop to the conscience of humanity proposes to give the subject races autonomy, a slippery word which in a case like this is useful only for rhetorical purposes.
Point thirteen proposes an independent Poland, which is right; and then proposes that we guarantee its integrity in the event of future war, which is preposterous unless we intend to become a military nation more fit for over- seas warfare than Germany is at present. Point fourteen proposes a general association of nations to guarantee to great and small States alike political independence and territorial integrity. It is dishonorable to make this proposition so long as President Wilson continues to act as he is now acting in Haiti and San Domingo. In its essence Mr. Wilson's proposition for a league of nations seems to be akin to the holy alliance of the nations of Europe a century ago, which worked such mischief that the Monroe Doctrine was called into being especially to combat it. If it is designed to do away with nationalism, it will work nothing but mischief. If it is devised in sane fashion as an addition to nationalism and as an addition to preparing our own strength for our own defense, it may do a small amount of good; but it will certainly accomplish nothing if more than a moderate amount is attempted and probably the best first step would be to make the existing league of the Allies a going concern. (Kansas City Star, October 30, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 420-423; Nat. Ed., XIX, 380-383.
See also League of Nations; Open Covenants; World War—Peace Settlement of.
Actual experience with the Fourteenth Amendment to the National Constitution, . . . has shown us that an amendment passed by the people with one purpose may be given by the courts a construction which makes it apply to wholly different purposes and in a wholly different manner. The Fourteenth Amendment has been construed by the courts to apply to a multitude of cases to which it is positive the people who passed the amendment had not the remotest idea of applying it. (At Philadelphia, April 10, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 262; Nat. Ed. XVII, 196.
It is announced that on the Fourth of July the celebration is to be by race groups— that is, by Scandinavians, Slavs, Germans, Italians, and so forth. In sport organizations it may be necessary to have such a kind of divided celebration in some places, but I most emphatically protest against such a type of celebration being general, and I doubt whether it is advisable to have it anywhere. On the contrary, I believe that we should make the Fourth of July a genuine Americanization day, and should use it to teach the prime lesson of Americanism, which is that there is no room in the country for the perpetuation of separate race groups or racial divisions; that we must all be Americans and nothing but Americans, and that therefore on the Fourth of July we should all get together simply as Americans and celebrate the day as such without regard to our several racial origins. (June 23, 1918.) Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 166.
Fox-hunting is a great sport, but it is as foolish to make a fetich of it as it is to decry it. The fox is hunted merely because there is no larger game to follow. As long as wolves, deer, or antelope remain in the land, and in a country where hounds and horsemen can work, no one would think of following the fox. It is pursued because the bigger beasts of the chase have been killed out. In England it has reached its present prominence only within two centuries; nobody followed the fox while the stag and the boar were common. At the present day, on Exmoor, where the wild stag is still found, its chase ranks ahead of that of the fox. It is not really the hunting proper which is the point in fox- hunting. It is the horsemanship, the galloping and jumping, and the being out in the open air. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 347; Nat. Ed. II, 298.
____________. As is always the case when an attempt is made to introduce anything new or out of the common, the effort to make riding to hounds a recognized amusement in the Northern States has given rise to a great deal of criticism, mostly of a singularly senseless sort, characterized by the sheerest and densest ignorance of the whole subject. Much of this criticism comes from men themselves too weak or too timid to do anything needing daring or involving the slightest personal risk, and who are actuated simply by jealousy of those who possess the attributes that they themselves lack. A favorite cry is that hunting is with us artificial and un-American. Of course it is artificial; so is every other form of sport in civilized countries, from tobogganing or ice-yachting to a game of base-ball. Anything more artificial than shooting quail on the wing over a trained setter could not be imagined. Hunting large game in the West with the rifle undoubtedly calls for the presence of a greater number of manly and hardy qualities in those who take part in it than is the case with riding to drag-hounds; but, unless the quarry is the grizzly bear, it does not need nearly as much personal daring. To object to hunting because they hunt in England is about as sensible as to object to lacrosse because the Indians play it. We do not have to concern ourselves in the least as to whether a pastime originated with Indians, or Englishmen, or Hottentots, for that matter, so long as it is attractive and health- giving. It goes without saying that the man who takes to hunting, not because it is a manly sport, but because it is done abroad, is a foolish snob; but, after all, he stands about on the same intellectual level with the man who refuses to take it up because it happens to be liked on the other side of the water. To say the sport is un-American seems particularly absurd to such of us as happen to be in part of Southern blood, and whose fore-fathers, in Virginia, Georgia, or the Carolinas, have for six generations followed the fox with horse and hound. Century, July 1886, pp. 341-342.
____________. Fox-hunting is a first-class sport; but one of the most absurd things in real life is to note the bated breath with which certain excellent fox-hunters, otherwise of quite healthy minds, speak of this admirable but not over-important pastime. They tend to make it almost as much of a fetish as, in the last century, the French and German nobles made the chase of the stag, when they carried hunting and game- preserving to a point which was ruinous to the national life. Fox-hunting is very good as a pastime, but it is about as poor a business as can be followed by any man of intelligence. . . . Of course, in reality the chief serious use of fox-hunting is to encourage manliness and vigor, and to keep men hardy, so that at need they can show themselves fit to take part in work or strife for their native land. When a man so far confuses ends and means as to think that fox-hunting, . . . or whatever else the sport may be, is to be itself taken as the end, instead of as the mere means of preparation to do work that counts when the time arises, when the occasion calls— why, that man had better abandon sport altogether. (St. Nicholas, May 1900.) Mem. Ed. XV, 470-471; Nat. Ed. XIII, 403.
In this great war France has suffered more and has achieved more than any other power. To her, more than to any other power, the final victory will be due. Civilization has in the past for immemorial centuries owed an incalculable debt to France; but for no single feat or achievement of the past does civilization owe as much to France as to what her sons and daughters have done in the world war now being waged by the free peoples against the powers of the Pit. (To Henry Bordeaux, June 27, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 525; Bishop II, 449.
It shows my own complacent Anglo-Saxon ignorance that I had hitherto rather looked down upon French public men, and have thought of them as people of marked levity. When I met them I found that they had just as solid characters as English and American public men, although with the attractiveness which to my mind makes the able and cultivated Frenchman really unique. (To Sir George Otto Trevelyan, October 1, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 271; Bishop II, 232.
The French feel with passionate conviction that this is the last stand of France, and that if she does not now succeed and is again trampled under foot, her people will lose for all time their place in the forefront of that great modern civilization of which the debt to France is literally incalculable. It would be impossible too highly to admire the way in which the men and women of France have borne themselves in this nerve-shattering time of awful struggle and awful suspense. They have risen level to the hour’s needs, whereas in 1870 they failed so to rise. The high valor of the French soldiers has been matched by the poise, the self-restraint, the dignity, and the resolution with which the French people and the French Government have behaved. (New York Times, October II, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 55; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 47.
____________. France has shown a heroism and a loftiness of soul worthy of Joan of Arc herself. She was better prepared than either of her allies, perhaps because the danger to her was more imminent and more terrible, and therefore more readily understood; and since the first month of the war she has done everything that it was in human power to do. The unity, the quiet resolution, the spirit of self-sacrifice among her people—soldiers and civilians, men and women—are of a noble type. The soul of France, at this moment, seems purified of all dross; it burns like the clear flame of fire on a sacred tripod. Frenchmen are not only a gallant but a generous race. (1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 257; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 221.
See also Algeciras Conference; Dreyfus, Alfred; French Revolution; Jusserand, J. J.; World War.
See Negro Suffrage; Suffrage; Voting; Woman Suffrage.
After I was elected governor I had my attention directed to the franchise tax matter, looked into the subject, and came to the conclusion that it was a matter of plain decency and honesty that these companies should pay a tax on their franchises, inasmuch as they did nothing that could be considered as service rendered the public in lieu of a tax. This seemed to me so evidently the common sense and decent thing to do that I was hardly prepared for the storm of protest and anger which my proposal aroused. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 342; Nat. Ed. XX, 292.
____________. On the one hand we have the perfectly simple savage who believes that you should tax franchises to the extent of confiscating them, and that it is the duty of all railroad corporations to carry everybody free and give him a chromo. On the other, we have the scarcely less primitive mortal who believes that there is something sacred in a franchise and that there is no reason why it should pay its share of the public burdens at all. Now, gentlemen, remember that the man who occupies the last position inevitably tends to produce the man who occupies the first position, and that the worst enemy of property is the man who, whether from unscrupulousness or from mere heedlessness and thoughtlessness, takes the ground that there is something sacrosanct about all property, that the owners of it are to occupy a different position in the community from all others and are to have their burdens not increased, but diminished, because of their wealth. (Before Independent Club, Buffalo, N. Y., May 15, 1899.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 487; Nat. Ed. XIV, 326.
I have just received a telegram to the effect that the Franchise Tax Law in New York has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. This was something very near my heart for I felt that the Franchise Tax Law was the most definite and important contribution to decent and intelligent government made by me while I was Governor. I am, therefore, very much pleased with the news. . . . The courts can be educated just as the public can be educated, and the suits you have carried on and the decisions you have secured in the United States Courts have had, I am convinced, a very profound effect elsewhere. Unless I am greatly mistaken one of the places where this effect is visible is this Franchise Tax decision. (To Philander C. Knox, April 28, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XXIII, 214; Bishop I, 187.
____________. The great measure of my administration as Governor was the franchise tax. It was far more bitterly fought than the public-utilities bill; and mind you, it broke ground for the first time in New York in dealing with these big corporations, and it has been declared constitutional by the highest court in the land. (To Lawrence F. Abbott, November 27, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 62; Bishop II, 53.
As a soldier Frederick the Great ranks in that very, very small group which includes Alexander, Caesar, and Hannibal in antiquity, and Napoleon, and possibly Gustavus Adolphus, in modern times. He belonged to the ancient and illustrious house of Hohenzollern, which, after playing a strong and virile part in the Middle Ages, and after producing some men, like the great Elector, who were among the most famous princes of their time, founded the royal house of Prussia two centuries ago, and at last in our own day established the mighty German Empire as among the foremost of world powers. . . . Not only must the military scholar always turn to the career of Frederick the Great for lessons in strategy and tactics; not only must the military administrator always turn to his career for lessons in organizing success; not only will the lover of heroism read the tales of his mighty feats as long as mankind cares for heroic deeds; but even those who are not attracted by the valor of the soldier must yet, for the sake of the greatness of the man, ponder and admire the lessons taught by his undaunted resolution, his inflexible tenacity of purpose, his farsighted grasp of lofty possibilities, and his unflinching, unyielding determination in following the path he had marked out. (At unveiling of statue of Frederick the Great, Washington, D. C., November 19, 1904.) Presidential Addresses and State Papers III, 101-103.
See Democracy; Government; Popular Rule; Self-Government.
Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where the people are themselves free. (May 7, 1918.) Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 148.
____________. One of our cardinal doctrines is freedom of speech, which means freedom of speech about foreigners as well as about ourselves; and, inasmuch as we exercise this right with complete absence of restraint, we cannot expect other nations to hold us harmless unless in the last resort we are able to make our own words good by our deeds. One class of our citizens indulges in gushing promises to do everything for foreigners, another class offensively and improperly reviles them; and it is hard to say which class more thoroughly misrepresents the sober, self - respecting judgment of the American people as a whole. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 609; Nat. Ed. XX, 523.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has just recommended the passage of a law in which, among many excellent propositions to put down disloyalty, there has been adroitly inserted a provision that any one who uses " contemptuous or slurring language about the President" shall be punished by imprisonment for a long term of years and by a fine of many thousand dollars. This proposed law is sheer treason to the United States. Under its terms Abraham Lincoln would have been sent to prison for what he repeatedly said of Presidents Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. . . . It is a proposal to make Americans subjects instead of citizens. It is a proposal to put the President in the position of the Hohenzollerns and Romanoffs. Government by the people means that the people have the right to do their own thinking and to do their own speaking about their public servants. They must speak truthfully and they must not be disloyal to the country, and it is their highest duty by truthful criticism to make and keep the public servants loyal to the country . . . .
Whenever the need arises I shall in the future speak truthfully of the President in praise or in blame, exactly as I have done in the past. . . . I am an American and a free man. My loyalty is due to the United States, and therefore it is due to the President, the Senators, the Congressmen, and all other public servants only and to the degree in which they loyally and efficiently serve the United States. (1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 325-327; Nat. Ed. XIX, 297-298.
See also Criticism; Lese-Majesty; Liberty.
There is certainly a reaction in public sentiment against our doctrines, but this should not encourage cowardice in the ranks. It should rather make the advocates of free trade more persistent in their efforts to bring about the desired reform. The first and most prominent evil to be attacked is the prohibitory tariff on ships, and after that may be mentioned the tariff on art, which makes us the laughing stock of the world. (Before New York Free Trade Club, May 28, 1883.) New York Times, May 29, 1883.
____________. Thank God I am not a free-trader. In this country pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fibre. (To H. C. Lodge, December 27, 1895.) Lodge Letters I, 204.
____________. Free trade is one of the laissez-faire theories that has been abandoned by every serious student of economics; free trade is one of the laissez- faire theories the reliance on which has reduced England to her present position of scrap-heap industrialism. The English employer and the English workmen offer as fine natural material as is to be found anywhere, yet during the last forty years they have tended to fall behind their brethren in Germany, just because Germany abandoned laissez-faire doctrines and has taken decisive action in favor of wise organization, wise governmental supervision and intelligent cooperation as between the government and the individual. Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1912, p. 4.
See also Reciprocity; Tariff.
Freedom is not a gift which can be enjoyed save by those who show themselves worthy of it. In this world no privilege can be permanently appropriated by men who have not the power and the will successfully to assume the responsibility of using it aright. . . . Freedom thus conceived is a constructive force, which enables an intelligent and good man to do better things than he could do without it; which is in its essence the substitution of self-restraint for external restraint—the substitution of a form of restraint which promotes progress for the form which retards it. This is the right view to take of freedom; but it can only be taken if there is a full recognition of the close connection between liberty and responsibility in every domain of human thought and action. (At Gettysburg, Pa., May 30, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XII, 609; Nat. Ed. XI, 326.
Exactly as the reactionary is in the end the worst foe of order; exactly as the conscienceless and greedy man of wealth is in the end the worst foe of property and of honest and duty- performing holders of property, so the Anarchist and the wild Socialist, whose doctrines when applied necessarily lead to Anarchy and the I.W.W., and the crackbrained professional pacifists inevitably themselves are the worst enemies of freedom, of true democracy, and of righteousness. (November 26, 1917.) Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 57.
No person should by contract be permitted to impose substantial restraints upon his liberty. Freedom to impose these restraints, if given to weak and needy people, simply amounts to defeating the very end of freedom. Academic freedom is the absolute negation of real freedom. Academic individualism defeats itself, whereas freedom in the fact makes for a rational individualism. (Outlook , March 11, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, I33; Nat. Ed. XVII, 94.
If freedom is worth having, if the right of self-government is a valuable right, then the one and the other must be retained exactly as our forefathers acquired them, by labor, and especially by labor in organiation; that is, in combination with our fellows who have the same interests and the same principles. (Before the Liberal Club, Buffalo, N. Y., January 26, 1893.) Mem. Ed. XV, 65; Nat. Ed. XIII, 282.
The distinguishing feature of our American governmental system is the freedom of the individual; it is quite as important to prevent his being oppressed by many men as it is to save him from the tyranny of one. (1887.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 92; Nat. Ed. VII, 80.
____________. The one great reason for our having succeeded as no other people ever has, is to be found in that common sense which has enabled us to preserve the largest possible individual freedom on the one hand, while showing an equally remarkable capacity for combination on the other. We have committed plenty of faults, but we have seen and remedied them. Our very doctrinaires have usually acted much more practically than they have talked. (1888.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 373; Nat. Ed. VII, 323.
Fundamentally, our chief problem may be summed up as the effort to make men, as nearly as they can be made, both free and equal; the freedom and equality necessarily resting on a basis of justice and brotherhood. It is not possible, with the imperfections of mankind, ever wholly to achieve such an ideal, if only for the reason that the shortcomings of men are such that complete and unrestricted individual liberty would mean the negation of even approximate equality, while a rigid and absolute equality would imply the destruction of every shred of liberty. Our business is to secure a practical working combination between the two. Outlook , September 3, 1910, p. 21.
See also Contract ; Democracy; Equality; Free Speech; Individualism; Liberty; Religious Freedom; Self-Government; Slavery; Tolerance.
See Railroad Rates.
See Parkman, Francis.
The French Revolution was in its essence a struggle for the abolition of privilege, and for equality in civil rights. . . . To the downtrodden masses of Continental Europe, the gift of civil rights and the removal of the tyranny of the privileged classes, even though accompanied by the rule of a directory, a consul, or an emperor, represented an immense political advance; but to the free people of England, and to the freer people of America, the change would have been wholly for the worse. (1888.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 403; Nat. Ed. VII, 347-348.
____________. There was never another great struggle, in the end productive of good to mankind, where the tools and methods by which that end was won were so wholly vile as in the French Revolution. Alone among movements of the kind, it brought forth no leaders entitled to our respect; none who were both great and good; none even who were very great, save, at its beginning, strange, strong, crooked Mirabeau, and at its close the towering world-genius who sprang to power by its means, wielded it for his own selfish purposes, and dazzled all nations over the wide earth by the glory of his strength and splendor. (1888.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 404-405; Nat. Ed. VII, 349.
____________. The excesses of the French Revolution were not only hideous in themselves, but were fraught with a menace to civilization which has lasted until our time and which has found its most vicious expression in the Paris Commune of 1871 and its would-be imitators here and in other lands. Nevertheless, there was hope for mankind in the French Revolution, and there was none in the system against which it was a protest, a system which had reached its highest development in Spain. Better the terrible flame of the French Revolution than the worse than Stygian hopelessness of the tyranny—physical, intellectual, spiritual—which brooded over the Spain of that day. (Outlook, December 2, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 422; Nat. Ed. XII, 116.
See also Morris, Gouverneur.
The individualism of the backwoodsmen . . . was tempered by a sound common sense, and capacity for combination. The first hunters might come alone or in couples, but the actual colonization was done not by individuals, but by groups of individuals. The settlers brought their families and belonging, either on pack-horses along the forest trails, or in scows down the streams; they settled in palisaded villages, and immediately took steps to provide both a civil and military organization. They were men of facts, not theories; and they showed their usual hard common sense in making a government. They did not try to invent a new system; they simply took that under which they had grown up, and applied it to their altered conditions. . . .
They were also familiar with the representative system; and accordingly they introduced it into the new communities, the little forted villages serving as natural units of representation. They were already thoroughly democratic, in instinct and principle, and, as a matter of course, they made the offices elective and gave full play to the majority. (1889.) Mem. Ed. XI, 225-226; Nat. Ed. IX, 13.
Out on the frontier, and generally among those who spend their lives in, or on the borders of the wilderness, life is reduced to its elemental conditions. The passions and emotions of these grim hunters of the mountains, and wild rough-riders of the plains, are simpler and stronger than those of people dwelling in more complicated states of society. As soon as the communities become settled and begin to grow with any rapidity, the American instinct for law asserts itself; but in the earlier stages each individual is obliged to be a law to himself and to guard his rights with a strong hand. Of course the transition periods are full of incongruities. Men have not yet adjusted their relations to morality and law with any niceness. They hold strongly by certain rude virtues, and on the other hand they quite fail to recognize even as shortcomings not a few traits that obtain scant mercy in older communities . . . . If the transition from the wild lawlessness of life in the wilderness or on the border to a higher civilization was stretched out over a term of centuries, he and his descendants would doubtless accommodate themselves by degrees to the changing circumstances. But unfortunately in the far West the transition takes place with marvellous abruptness, and at an altogether unheard-of speed, and many a man's nature is unable to change with sufficient rapidity to allow him to harmonize with his environment. In consequence, unless he leaves for still wilder lands, he ends by getting hanged instead of founding a family which would revere his name as that of a very capable although not in all respects a conventionally moral, ancestor. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 379-38o; Nat. Ed. II, 325-326.
The history of the border wars, both in the ways they were begun and in the ways they were waged, makes a long tale of injuries inflicted, suffered, and mercilessly revenged. It could not be otherwise when brutal, reckless, lawless borderers, despising all men not of their own color, were thrown in contact with savages who esteemed cruelty and treachery as the highest of virtues, and rapine and murder as the worthiest of pursuits. Moreover, it was sadly inevitable that the law-abiding borderer as well as the white ruffian, the peaceful Indian as well as the painted marauder, should be plunged into the straggle to suffer the punishment that should only have fallen on their evil-minded fellows.
Looking back, it is easy to say that much of the wrongdoing could have been prevented; but if we examine the facts to find out the truth, not to establish a theory, we are bound to admit that the struggle was really one that could not possibly have been avoided. The sentimental historians speak as if the blame had been all ours, and the wrong all done to our foes, and as if it would have been possible by any exercise of wisdom to reconcile claims that were in their very essence conflicting; but their utterances are as shallow as they are untruthful. Unless we were willing that the whole continent west of the Alleghanies should remain an unpeopled waste, the hunting-ground of savages, war was inevitable; and even had we been willing, and had we refrained from encroaching on the Indians' lands, the war would have come nevertheless, for then the Indians themselves would have encroached on ours. (1889.) Mem. Ed. X, 78-79; Nat. Ed. VIII, 69-70.
See also Boone, Daniel; Cattleman; Clark, George Rogers; Cowboys; Expansion; Explorers; Homestead Law; Indians; Individualism; Jesuits; Louisiana Purchase; Manifest Destiny; Militia; Northwest ; Pioneer; Scotch-Irish; Sevier, J.; Texas; Vigilantes; War of 1812; Watauga Settlement; West ; Westward Movement.
There was not only much that was attractive in their wild, free, reckless lives, but there was also very much good about the men themselves. They were—and such of them as are left still are—frank, bold, and self-reliant to a degree. They fear neither man, brute, nor element. They are generous and hospitable; they stand loyally by their friends, and pursue their enemies with bitter and vindictive hatred. For the rest, they differ among themselves in their good and bad points even more markedly than do men in civilized life, for out on the border virtue and wickedness alike take on very pronounced colors. A man who in civilization would be merely a backbiter becomes a murderer on the frontier; and, on the other hand, he who in the city would do nothing more than bid you a cheery good morning, shares his last bit of sun-jerked venison with you when threatened by starvation in the wilderness. (1888.) Mem. Ed. IV, 457; Nat. Ed. I, 351.
____________. A single generation, passed under the hard conditions of life in the wilder-ness, was enough to weld together into one people the representatives of …. numerous and widely different races; and the children of the next generation became indistinguishable from one another. Long before the first Continental Congress assembled, the backwoodsmen, whatever their blood, had become Americans, one in speech, thought, and character, clutching firmly the land in which their fathers and grandfathers had lived before them. They had lost all remembrance of Europe and all sympathy with things European; they had become as emphatically products native to the soil as were the tough and supple hickories out of which they fashioned the handles of their long, light axes. Their grim, harsh, narrow lives were yet strangely fascinating, and full of adventurous toil and danger; none but natures as strong, as freedom- loving, and as full of bold defiance as theirs could have endured existence on the terms which these men found pleasurable. Their iron surroundings made a mould which turned out all alike in the same shape. They resembled one another, and they differed from the rest of the world—even the world of America, and infinitely more, the world of Europe—in dress, in customs, and in the mode of life. (1889.) Mem. Ed. X, 101-102; Nat. Ed. VIII, 89.1
____________. The old race of Rocky Mountain hunters and trappers, of reckless, dauntless Indian fighters, is now fast dying out. Yet here and there these restless wanderers of the untrodden wilderness still linger in wooded fastnesses so inaccessible that the miners have not yet explored them, in mountain valleys so far off that no ranchman has yet driven his herds thither. To this day many of them wear the fringed tunic or hunting-shirt, made of buckskin or homespun, and belted in at the waist—the most picturesque and distinctively national dress ever worn in America. . . . These old-time hunters have been forerunners of the white advance throughout all our Western land. Soon after the beginning of the present century they boldly struck out beyond the Mississippi, steered their way across the flat and endless seas of grass, or pushed up the valleys of the great lonely rivers, crossed the passes that wound among the towering peaks of the Rockies, toiled over the melancholy wastes of sage- brush and alkali, and at last, breaking through the gloomy woodland that belts the coast, they looked out on the heaving waves of the greatest of all the oceans. They lived for months, often for years, among the Indians, now as friends, now as foes, warring, hunting, and marrying with them; they acted as guides for exploring parties, as scouts for the soldiers who from time to time were sent against the different hostile tribes. At long intervals they came into some frontier settlement or some fur company's fort, posted in the heart of the wilderness, to dispose of their bales of furs, or to replenish their stock of ammunition and purchase a scanty supply of coarse food and clothing. From that day to this they have not changed their way of life. But there are not many of them left now. The basin of the upper Missouri was their last stronghold, being the last great hunting-ground of the Indians with whom the white, trappers were always fighting and bickering, but who nevertheless by their presence protected the game that gave the trappers their livelihood. (1888.) Mem. Ed. IV, 455-456; Nat. Ed. I, 349-350.
There are some striking exceptions; but, as a rule, the grinding toil and hardship of a life passed in the wilderness, or on its outskirts, drive the beauty and bloom from a woman's face long before her youth has left her. By the time she is a mother she is sinewy and angular, with thin, compressed lips and furrowed, sallow brow. But she has a hundred qualities that atone for the grace she lacks. She is a good mother and a hard-working housewife, always putting things to rights, washing and cooking for her stalwart spouse and offspring. She is faithful to her husband, and like the true American that she is, exacts faithfulness in return. Peril cannot daunt her, nor hardship and poverty appall her. Whether on the mountains in a log hut chinked with moss, in a sod or adobe hovel on the desolate prairie, or in a mere temporary camp, where the white-topped wagons have been drawn up in a protection-giving circle near some spring, she is equally at home. Clad in a dingy gown and a hideous sunbonnet she goes bravely about her work, resolute, silent, uncomplaining. The children grow up pretty much as fate dictates. Even when very small they seem well able to protect themselves. (1888.) Mem. Ed. IV, 476-477; Nat. Ed. I, 367-368.
BECOME A MEMBER
Join the TRA today and receive the Association's scholarly journal, participate in Association-sponsored travel and tour opportunities and local TRA Chapter activities and events, and receive invitations to all TRA events.