In such matter as the Hague Conference business the violent extremists who favor the matter are to be dreaded almost or quite as much as the Bourbon reactionaries who are against us. . . . I hope to see real progress made at the next Hague Conference. If it is possible in some way to bring about a stop, complete or partial, to the race in adding to armaments, I shall be glad; but I do not yet see my way clear as regards the details of such a plan. We must always remember that it would be a fatal thing for the great free peoples to reduce themselves to impotence and leave the despotisms and barbarians armed. It would be safe to do so if there were some system of international police; but there is now no such system. (To Andrew Carnegie, August 5, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 25; Bishop II, 21.
In such matter as the Hague Conference business the violent extremists who favor the matter are to be dreaded almost or quite as much as the Bourbon reactionaries who are against us. . . . I hope to see real progress made at the next Hague Conference. If it is possible in some way to bring about a stop, complete or partial, to the race in adding to armaments, I shall be glad; but I do not yet see my way clear as regards the details of such a plan. We must always remember that it would be a fatal thing for the great free peoples to reduce themselves to impotence and leave the despotisms and barbarians armed. It would be safe to do so if there were some system of international police; but there is now no such system. (To Andrew Carnegie, August 5, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 25; Bishop II, 21.
____________. It was well worth going into these Hague conferences, but only on condition of clearly understanding how strictly limited was the good that they accomplished. The hysterical people who treated them as furnishing a patent peace panacea did nothing but harm, and partially offset the real but limited good the conferences actually accomplished. Indeed, the conferences undoubtedly did a certain amount of damage because of the preposterous expectations they excited among well-meaning but ill-informed and unthinking persons. These persons really believed that it was possible to achieve the millennium by means that would not have been very effective in preserving peace among the active boys of a large Sunday-school—let alone grown-up men in the world as it actually is. A pathetic commentary on their attitude is furnished by the fact that the fifteen years that have elapsed since the first Hague conference have seen an immense increase of war, culminating in the present war, waged by armies, and with bloodshed, on a scale far vaster than ever before in the history of mankind. (Everybody's, January 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 149; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 128.
The Hague conventions were treaties entered into by us with, among other nations, Belgium and Germany. Under our Constitution such a treaty becomes part of "the supreme law of the land," binding upon ourselves and upon the other nations that make it. For this reason we should never lightly enter into a treaty, and should both observe it, and demand its observance by others when made. The Hague conventions were part of the Supreme Law of our Land, under the Constitution. Therefore Germany violated the supreme law of our land when she brutally wronged Belgium; and we permitted it without a word of protest. (Metropolitan, February 1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 281; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 241.
They forbid the violation of neutral territory, and, of course, the subjugation of unoffending neutral nations, as Belgium has been subjugated. They forbid such destruction as that inflicted on Louvain, Dinant, and other towns in Belgium, the burning of their priceless public libraries and wonderful halls and churches, and the destruction of cathedrals such as that at Rheims. They forbid the infliction of heavy pecuniary penalties and the taking of severe punitive measures at the expense of civilian populations. They forbid the bombardment—of course including the dropping of bombs from aeroplanes—of unfortified cities and of cities whose defenses were not at the moment attacked. They forbid such actions as have been committed against various cities, Belgian, French, and English, not for military reason but for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population by killing and wounding men, women, and children who were non-combatants. All of these offenses have been committed by Germany. (Independent, January 4, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 177; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 152.
The United States and the great powers now at war were parties to the international code created in the regulations annexed to The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. As President, acting on behalf of this government, and in accordance with the unanimous wish of our people, I ordered the signature of the United States to these conventions. Most emphatically I would not have permitted such a farce to have gone through if it had entered my head that this government would not consider itself bound to do all it could to see that the regulations to which it made itself a party were actually observed when the necessity for their observance arose. I cannot imagine any sensible nation thinking it worth while to sign future Hague conventions if even such a powerful neutral as the United States does not care enough about them to protest against their open breach. Of the present neutral powers the United States of America is the most disinterested and the strongest, and should therefore bear the main burden of responsibility in this matter. It is quite possible to make an argument to the effect that we never should have entered into The Hague conventions, because our sole duty is to ourselves and not to others, and our sole concern should be to keep ourselves at peace, at any cost, and not to help other powers that are oppressed, and not to protest against wrong-doing. I do not myself accept this view; but in practice it is the view taken by the present administration, apparently with at the moment the approval of the mass of our people. Such a policy, while certainly not exalted, and in my judgment neither far-sighted nor worthy of a high-spirited and lofty- souled nation, is yet in a sense understandable, and in a sense defensible. (New York Times, November 8, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX. 87; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 75.
I took the action I did in directing these conventions to be signed on the theory and with the belief that the United States intended to live up to its obligations, and that our people understood that living up to solemn obligations, like any other serious performance of duty, means willingness to make effort and to incur risk. If I had for one moment supposed that signing these Hague conventions meant literally nothing whatever beyond the expression of a pious wish which any power was at liberty to disregard with impunity, in accordance with the dictation of self-interest, I would certainly not have permitted the United States to be a party to such a mischievous farce. (Independent, January 4, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 178; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 153.
We must refuse to be misled into abandoning the policy of efficient self-defense, by any unfounded trust that The Hague court, as now constituted, and peace or arbitration treaties of the existing type, can in the smallest degree accomplish what they never have accomplished and never can accomplish. Neither the existing Hague court nor any peace treaties of the existing type will exert even the slightest influence in saving from disaster any nation that does not preserve the virile virtues and the long-sightedness that will enable it by its own might to guard its own honor, interest, and national life. (New York Times, October 4, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 47; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 41.
____________. Important though it is that we should get the Hague Tribunal to act where it can properly act. . . it is very much more important that we have a first- class navy and an efficient, though small, army. No Hague Court will save us if we come short in these respects. (To L. F. Abbott, January 1903.) Lawrence F. Abbott, Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt. (Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City, N. Y., 1919), p. 107.
Questions between nations continually arise which are not of first-class importance; which, for instance, refer to some illegal act by or against a fishing-schooner, to some difficulty concerning contracts, to some question of the interpretation of a minor clause in a treaty, or to the sporadic action of some hot-headed or panic-struck official. In these cases, where neither nation wishes to go to war, The Hague court has furnished an easy method for the settlement of the dispute without war. This does not mark a very great advance; but it is an advance, and was worth making. The fact that it is the only advance that The Hague court has accomplished make the hysterical outbursts formerly indulged in by the ultrapacifists concerning it seem in retrospect exceedingly foolish. While I had never shared the hopes of these ultrapacifists, I had hoped for more substantial good than has actually come from The Hague conventions. This was because I accept promises as meaning something. (Independent, January 4, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 176; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 151.
The Hague court has served a very limited, but a useful, purpose. Some, although only a small number, of the existing peace and arbitration treaties have served a useful purpose. But the purpose and the service have been strictly limited. Issues often arise between nations which are not of first-class importance, which do not affect their vital honor and interest, but which, if left unsettled, may eventually cause irritation that will have the worst possible results. The Hague court and the different treaties in question provide instrumentalities for settling such disputes, where the nations involved really wish to settle them but might be unable to do so if means were not supplied. This is a real service and one well worth rendering. These treaties and The Hague court have rendered such service again and again in time past. It has been a misfortune that some worthy people have anticipated too much and claimed too much in reference to them, for the failure of the excessive claims has blinded men to what they really have accomplished. To expect from them what they cannot give is merely shortsighted. To assert that they will give what they cannot give is mischievous. (New York Times, October 4, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 46; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 40.
The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power, to enforce the decrees of the court. (Before Nobel Prize Committee, Christiania, Norway, May 5, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 414; Nat. Ed. XVI, 309.
In practice The Hague treaties have proved and will always prove useless while there is no sanction of force behind them. For the United States to proffer "good offices" to the various powers entering such a great conflict as the present one accomplishes not one particle of good; to refer them, when they mutually complain of wrongs, to a Hague court which is merely a phantom does less than no good. The Hague treaties can accomplish nothing, and ought not have been entered into, unless in such a case as this of Belgium there is willingness to take efficient action under them. There could be no better illustration of how extremely complicated and difficult a thing it is in practice instead of in theory to make even a small advance in the cause of peace. (New York Times, October 4, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 44; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 37.
____________ I have been frantically denounced by the pacifists because I would not enter into these treaties. But the reason was simply that I would not enter into any treaty I did not intend to keep and think we could keep. I regard with horror the fact that this Government has not protested under the Hague Conventions as to the outrageous wrongs inflicted upon Belgium. (I would have made the protest effective!) I agree absolutely with you that no treaty of the kind should hereafter ever be made unless the Powers signing it bind themselves to uphold its terms by force if necessary. (To Sir Edward Grey, February 1, 1915.) Twenty-five Years by Viscount Grey of Fallodon. (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1925), II, 149.
See also Arbitration; Belgium; Neutrality; Promises; Straus, Oscar S.;
At this moment Hayti is more backward than any other West Indian island, her average negro citizen is less well off than the corresponding negro in any of the other islands, and the general social condition is worse and contains less promise than in any other island; and all because the other islands have been through a process of evolution instead of revolution. There was ample moral warrant for the Haytian revolution at the end of the eighteenth century; nevertheless, its success was a curse, for its success, with the dreadful accompanying atrocities, put off the day when eman-cipation came to the other islands; and, moreover, in a short time emancipation would have inevitably come to Hayti anyhow, with comparatively little shock and dislocation; and then there would have been left in the island, as in the other islands, an element naturally fit for uplifting leadership. (Outlook , June 4, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 190; Nat. Ed. XII, 218.
See also Open Covenants; Slavery; Suffrage. Hale, Nathan. See André, John. Hamilton, Alexander. See Federalist, The; Jefferson, Thomas; Morris, Gouverneur; Root, Elihu.
I have never used in peace or in war any such expression as "hands across the sea," and I emphatically disapprove of what it signifies save in so far as it means cordial friendship between us and every other nation that acts in accordance with the standards that we deem just and right. On this ground all Americans, no matter what their race origins, ought to stand together. It is not just that they should be asked to stand with any foreign power on the ground of community of origin between some of them and the citizens of that foreign power. (Metropolitan, October 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 329; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 282.
See also Foreign Relations; International Relations.
No man had larger traits than Hanna. He was a big man in every way and as forceful a personality as we have seen in public life in our generation. I think that not merely for myself, but the whole party and the whole country have reason to be very grateful to him for the way in which, after I came into office, under circumstances which were very hard for him, he resolutely declined to be drawn into the position which a smaller man of meaner cast would inevitably have taken; that is, the position of antagonizing public policies if I was identified with them. He could have caused the widest disaster to the country and the public if he had attacked and opposed the policies referring to Panama, the Philippines, Cuban reciprocity, Army reform, the Navy, and the legislation for regulating corporations. But he stood by them just as loyally as if I had been McKinley. (To Elihu Root, February 16, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XXIII, 363-364; Bishop I, 315.
Happiness cannot come to any man capable of enjoying true happiness unless it comes as the sequel to duty well and honestly done. (At Groton School, Groton, Mass., May 24, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XV, 479; Nat. Ed. XIII, 557.
If you are to play any part in the world, if you are to have great happiness, you must make up your mind that you are not going to shrink from risks, that you are going to face the fact that effort, and painful effort, will often be necessary; and you must count for your happiness, not on avoiding everything that is unpleasant, but of possessing in you the power to overcome and trample it under foot. If you have small, shallow souls, shallow souls and shallow hearts, I will not say you will be unhappy; you can obtain the bridge-club standards of happiness, and you can go through life without cares and without sorrows, and without conscious effort, in so far as your brains will enable you to do so; but you have richly deserved the contempt of everybody whose respect is worth having. (At Occidental College, Los Angeles, Cal., March 22, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 514; Nat. Ed. XIII, 580.
I cannot expect most people to believe that I have not for years been happier than since election. I have worked very hard and practically without intermission for a long time. Now what I most desire is to be free from engagements and stay out here with Mother and without too much to do, and since election I have been quite busy but it is not exhausting labor and will diminish rather than increase. We have had ten lovely days here. I have ridden once or twice. Two or three times I have taken Mother for a row and we have walked together and sat by the wood-fire in the late afternoon and evening. I was going to say that I have been as happy as a king, but as a matter of fact I have been infinitely happier than any of the kings I know, poor devils! (To Kermit Roosevelt, November 11, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 418; Bishop II, 356.
See also Children; Family Life; Ideals; Joy of Living; Love; Pleasure; Success.
The slightest acquaintance with our industrial history should teach even the most short- sighted that the times of most suffering for our people as a whole, the times when business is stagnant, and capital suffers from shrinkage and gets no return from its in vestments, are exactly the times of hardship, and want, and grim disaster among the poor. If all the existing instrumentalities of wealth could be abolished, the first and severest suffering would come among those of us who are least well off at present. The wage-worker is well off only when the rest of the country is well off; and he can best contribute to this general well-being by showing sanity and a firm purpose to do justice to others. (At State Fair, Syracuse, N. Y., September 7, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 65; Nat. Ed. XVI, 55.
____________. When hard times come it is inevitable that the President under whom they come should be blamed. There are foolish people who supported me because we had heavy crops; and there are now foolish people who oppose me because extravagant speculations, complicated here and there with dishonesty, have produced the inevitable reaction. (To Hamlin Garland, November 23, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 58; Bishop II, 49.
See also Currency; Panic; Prosperity.
Georgia has done a great many things for the Union; but she has never done more than when she gave Mr. Joel Chandler Harris to American literature. I suppose he is one of those literary people who insist that art should have nothing to do with morals, and will condemn me as a Philistine for not agreeing with them; but I want to say that one of the great reasons why I like what he has written is because after reading it I rise up with the purpose of being a better man, a man who is bound to strive to do what is in him for the cause of decency and for the cause of righteousness. Gentlemen, I feel too strongly to indulge in any language of mere compliment, of mere flattery. Where Mr. Harris seems to me to have done one of his greatest services is that he has written what exalts the South in the mind of every man who reads it, and yet what has not even a flavor of bitterness toward any other part of the Union. There is not an American anywhere who can read Mr. Harris's stories—I am not speaking at the moment of his wonderful folk tales, but of his stories—who does not rise up a better citizen for having read them, who does not rise up with a more earnest desire to do his part in solving American problems aright. (Before Piedmont Club, Atlanta, Ga., October 20, 1905.) Presidential Addresses and State Papers IV, 501.
____________. Fond though I am of the brer rabbit stories I think I am even fonder of your other writings. I doubt if there is a more genuinely pathetic tale in all our literature than "Free Joe." Moreover I have felt that all that you write serves to bring our people closer together. I know, of course, the ordinary talk is that an artist should be judged purely by his art; but I am rather a Philistine and like to feel that the art serves a good purpose. Your art is not only an art addition to our sum of national achievement, but it has also always been an addition to the forces that tell for decency, and above all for the blotting out of sectional antagonism. (To Joel Chandler Harris, October 12, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 505; Nat. Ed. XIX, 448.
I saw the President yesterday and had a long talk with him. . . . The conclusion of the talk was rather colorless, as usual. Heavens, how I like positive men! (To H. C. Lodge, May 9, 1890.) Lodge Letters I, 99.
See also Civil Service Commissioner.
It is idle to try to justify the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, or of the Massachusetts and Connecticut legislatures. The decision to keep the New England troops as an independent command was of itself sufficient ground for condemnation; moreover, it was not warranted by any show of superior prowess on the part of the New Englanders, for a portion of Maine continued in possession of the British till the close of the war. The Hartford resolutions were so framed as to justify seceding or not seceding as events turned out. (1888.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 538; Nat. Ed. VII, 465.
The poorest of all emotions for any American citizen to feel is the emotion of hatred toward his fellows. Let him feel a just and righteous indignation where that just and righteous indignation is called for; let him not hesitate to inflict punishment where the punishment is needed m the interest of the public; but let him beware of demanding mere vengeance; and above all of inciting the masses of the people to such demand. (Speech at Oyster Bay, N. Y., July 4, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 8; Nat. Ed. XVI, 7.
See also Class Hatred.
We should annex Hawaii immediately. It was a crime against the United States, it was a crime against white civilization, not to annex it two years and a half ago. The delay did damage that is perhaps irreparable; for it means that at the critical period of the island's growth the influx of population consisted, not of white Americans, but of low-caste laborers drawn from the yellow races. (Century, November 1895.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 347; Nat. Ed. XIV, 247-248.
____________. If the United States desires to become what it undoubtedly should become, the great power of the Pacific, then our people must heartily back up President McKinley's course in preparing the annexation treaty. We must take Hawaii just as we must continue to build a navy equal to the needs of America's greatness. If we do not take Hawaii ourselves we will have lost the right to dictate what shall be her fate. We cannot play hot and cold at the same moment. Hawaii cannot permanently stand alone, and we have no right to expect other powers to be blind to their own interests because we are blind to ours. If Hawaii does not become American then we may as well make up our minds to see it become European or Asiatic. Gunton's Magazine, January 1898, p. 4.
In my judgment immediate steps should be taken for the fortification of Hawaii. This is the most important point in the Pacific to fortify in order to conserve the interests of this country. It would be hard to overstate the importance of this need. (Fifth Annual Message, Washington, December 5, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 391; Nat. Ed. XV, 333.
In Hawaii our aim must be to develop the Territory on the traditional American lines. We do not wish a region of large estates tilled by cheap labor; we wish a healthy American community of men who themselves till the farms they own. All our legislation for the islands should be shaped with this end in view; the well-being of the average home-maker must afford the true test of the healthy development of the islands. (First Annual Message, Washington, December 3, 1901.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 126; Nat. Ed. XV,
John Hay's death was very sudden and removes from American life a man whose position was literally unique. The country was the better because he lived, for it was a fine thing to have set before our young men the example of success contained in the career of a man who had held so many and such important public positions, while there was not in his nature the slightest touch of the demagogue, and who in addition to his great career in political life had also left a deep mark in literature. (To Henry Cabot Lodge, July 11, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XXIII, 425; Bishop I, 369.
____________. John Hay was one of a very limited number of American public men who have possessed marked literary ability and that high and fine quality of intellectual eminence which Matthew Arnold would have characterized as "distinction." In consequence of a rather curious tradition of American public life, ambassadors and ministers have frequently been appointed because they were distinguished men of letters. There would have been nothing unusual in Hay's having come purely in this class. But John Hay, in addition to serving abroad in various diplomatic positions, including that of ambassador at the Court of St. James, began his public career by being the private secretary of Abraham Lincoln during the tremendous crisis of the Civil War and ended it by being secretary of state during the years which saw the United States, for good or evil, forced to take her part among the great powers of the world and begin to deal with world questions. (Harvard Graduates' Magazine, December 1915.) Mem. Ed. XII, 503; Nat. Ed. XI, 244.
____________. As secretary of state, Hay occupied a unique position. To a high standard of personal integrity, which made him expect and believe that the nation should observe the same standard of national integrity, he added a fastidiousness of temper, of taste, of refinement, which was a very real benefit to American public life when exhibited in high public place by a man of signal and conceded capacity as a public servant. The sensitive refinement of nature, like the sheer massiveness of Lincoln's character, made it impossible for Hay to tolerate what was meretricious or sentimental or offensive to morals. . . . Hay's services as secretary of state were great; but it may be doubted whether his services as Lincoln's biographer were not even greater. At any rate, the monumental work, in which he was partner with Nicolay, taken together with the two volumes of Lincoln's letters which they subsequently edited, will always remain a storehouse, wherein not merely the American historians of the period of the Civil War, but American politicians anxious to deal in proper fashion with national problems, will find a wealth of material that they can find nowhere else. (Harvard Graduates' Magazine, December 1915) Mem. Ed. XII, 504, 505; Nat. Rd. XI, 246, 247.
The Hay-Herran treaty, if it erred at all, erred in the direction of an over- generosity toward the Colombian Government. In our anxiety to be fair we had gone to the very verge in yielding to a weak nation's demands what that nation was helplessly unable to enforce from us against our will. The only criticisms made upon the Administration for the terms of the Hay-Herran treaty were for having granted too much to Colombia, not for failure to grant enough. Neither in the Congress nor in the public press, at the time that this treaty was formulated, was there complaint that it did not in the fullest and amplest manner guarantee to Colombia everything that she could by any color of title demand. (Message to Congress, January 4, 1904.) Presidential Addresses and State Papers II, 713.
Under the Hay- Pauncefote treaty it was explicitly provided that the United States should control, police, and protect the canal which was to be built, keeping it open for the vessels of all nations on equal terms. The United States thus assumed the position of guarantor of the canal and of its peaceful use by all the world. The guarantee included as a matter of course the building of the canal. The enterprise was recognized as responding to an international need. (Message to Congress, January 4. 1904.) Presidential Addresses and State Papers II, 712.
See also Panama Canal
Hays is a trump. He is all right. He may make mistakes, but he won't make many. The party seems to be united on him and that's something well worth while. Now we've got to back him up. With Hays at work and on the job, I think we'll get results. For one thing, there's only one party now. Most of the Progressives have come back. Most of the others will follow. Those that won't return would sooner or later have quit even the Progressive Party—they're just natural-born Mavericks who won't stay long in any herd, and won't stay branded. Hays will, I m sure, weld the party firmly together. The day of factions has gone. But we have all got to help him. (February or March 1918; recorded by Leary.) Talks with T. R. From the diaries of John J. Leary, Jr. (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1920), p. 9.
I heartily disapprove of the practice of hazing, and, in common with all those interested in the welfare of the Academy, wish to see this practice thoroughly eradicated there. But the punishment of dismissal is altogether disproportionate to the culpability involved in some forms of hazing. In many cases, these amount to nothing more than exhibitions of boyish mischief attended with no consequence of any moment to those hazed, and indicating on the part of the hazers only some exuberance of animal spirits. Unquestionably they ought to be punished, for under any circumstances hazing constitutes a breach of the rules, and the future officers of our Navy must be taught, first of all and as a foundation for all other merits, strict and unquestioning obedience. But to punish those faults of youth by depriving the young man concerned of his career in life is to commit a glaring injustice. (To chairmen of Naval Committees of Senate and House, February 1, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 5; Bishop II, 5.
No people are more vitally interested than working men and working women in questions affecting the public health. The pure-food law must be strengthened and efficiently enforced. In the National Government one department should be in trusted with all the agencies relating to the public health, from the enforcement of the pure-food law to the administration of quarantine. This department, through its special health service, would co-operate intelligently with the various State and municipal bodies established for the same end. There would be no discrimination against us for any one set of therapeutic methods, against or for any one school of medicine or system of healing; the aim would be merely to secure under one administrative body efficient sanitary regulation in the interest of the people as a whole. (Before Progressive National Convention, Chicago, August 6,1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 377; Nat. Ed. XVII, 270.
Hearst's nomination is a very, very bad thing. I do not think he will be elected, and yet I cannot blind myself to his extraordinary popularity among the "have-nots," and the chance there is for him because of the great agitation and unrest which we have witnessed during the last eighteen months—an agitation and unrest in large part due simply to the evil preaching of men like himself, but also due to the veritable atrocities committed by some wealthy men and by the attitude of the Bourbon reactionaries who endeavor to prevent any remedy of the evils due to the lack of supervision of wealth. (To H. C. Lodge, October 1, 1906.) Lodge Letters II, 239.
The Hearst papers play the German game when they oppose the war, assail our allies, and clamor for an inconclusive peace, and they play the German game when they assail the men who truthfully point out the shortcomings which, unless corrected, will redound to Germany's advantage and our terrible disadvantage. But the administration has taken no action against the Hearst papers. (1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 323; Nat. Ed. XIX, 295.
See Anti-Semitsm; Jews
It is of little use for us to pay lip- loyalty to the mighty men of the past unless we sincerely endeavor to apply to the problems of the present precisely the qualities which in other crises enabled the men of that day to meet those crises. (At Osawatomie, Kan., August 31, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 13; Nat. Ed. XVII, 7.
It is a good thing for all Americans, and it is an especially good thing for young Americans, to remember the men who have given their lives in war and peace to the service of their fellow countrymen, and to keep in mind the feats of daring and personal prowess done in time past by some of the many champions of the nation in the various crises of her history. (Preface to Hero Tales, with H. C. Lodge, 1895.) Mem. Ed. IX, xxi; Nat. Ed. X, xxiii.
In the long run every great nation instinctively recognizes the men who peculiarly and preëminently represent its own type of greatness. Here in our country we have had many public men of high rank—soldiers, orators, constructive statesmen, and popular leaders. We have even had great philosophers who were also leaders of popular thought. Each of these men has had his own group of devoted followers, and some of them have at times swayed the nation with a power such as the foremost of all hardly wielded. (At Galena, Ill., April 27, 1900.) Mem. Ed. XII, 458; Nat. Ed. XIII, 430.
____________. The worst ill that can befall us is to have our own souls corrupted, and it is a debasing thing for a nation to choose as its heroes the men of mere wealth. (At Pacific Theological Seminary, Spring 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 581; Nat. Ed. XIII, 620.
The men who have died of pneumonia or fever in the hospitals, the men who have been killed in accidents on the airplane training-fields are as much heroes as those who were killed at the front, and their shining souls shall hereafter light up all to a clearer and greater view of the duties of life. (Kansas City Star, November 13, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 370; Nat. Ed. XIX, 337.
We should . . . keep in mind that the hero cannot win save for the forethought, energy, courage, and capacity of countless other men. Yet we must keep in mind also that all this forethought, energy, courage, and capacity will be wasted unless at the supreme moment some man of the heroic type arises capable of using to the best advantage the powers lying ready to hand. (McClure's Magazine, October 1899.) Mem. Ed. XII, 515; Nat. Ed. XIII, 427.
Thrift, industry, obedience to law, and intellectual cultivation are essential qualities in the make-up of any successful people; but no people can be really great unless they possess also the heroic virtues which are as needful in time of peace as in time of war, and as important in civil as in military life. (Preface to Hero Tales, with H. C. Lodge, 1895.) Mem. Ed. IX, xxi; Nat. Ed. X, xxiii.
See also Virtues
Now, if an opportunity comes, I shall be more than glad to do as you suggest about Mr. Hewitt. I say "if an opportunity comes," because, as you with your great experience of public life know, it is not possible to foretell just how the chance will shape itself. It may be that when an opportunity to give Mr. Hewitt what he deserves arises there will be some imperative necessity to recognize the claim of someone else. I say this only because I do not want even impliedly to promise more than I am able to perform. But I want to add that I would particularly like, for my own sake, to satisfy my own feeling as to the recognition of the highest quality of citizenship, to pay the compliment, to give the acknowledgment, to Mr. Hewitt. Now can you indicate at all specifically the kind of thing you would suggest? I do not believe I ought to offer him a position in the Cabinet, even though an opportunity arose. Short of that there is nothing I would not gladly offer him; and as far as I am personally concerned, I should be only too delighted to have him in the Cabinet. But from the political standpoint, both as regards him and myself, I should doubt the wisdom of so doing. (To D. M. Dickinson, March 26, 1902.) Allan Nevins, Abram S. Hewitt. With some account of Peter Cooper. (Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1935), p. 599.
There are two kinds of historians: one, the delver, the bricklayer, the man who laboriously gathers together bare facts; and the other, the builder, the architect, who out of these facts makes the great edifice of history. Both are indispensable; but it is only the latter who can be called an historian in the highest sense. Without a thorough and full knowledge of the details, generalization is mere folly, and the man who tries to generalize on insufficient or misunderstood data is many degrees worse than the man who does not try to generalize at all, but merely gathers data. Nevertheless it is the generalizer really able to handle the subject who does the permanent work. (Bookman, June 1897.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 326-327; Nat. Ed. XII, 280-281.
____________. The great historian is necessarily a man of imagination, and, however accurate he may be, he cannot be, in the broadest sense, truthful, unless, like Gibbon, Macaulay, and others, he has the power to visualize to himself what he has found in the past,— unless he has the power not merely to visualize it himself, but to put it down in words so that his readers can visualize it also. (Lecture, March 21, 1911.) Bulletin of Throop Polytechnic Institute, July 1911, pp. 6-7.
The great historian of the future will have easy access to innumerable facts patiently gathered by tens of thousands of investigators, whereas the great historian of the past had very few facts, and often had to gather most of these himself. The great historian of the future cannot be excused if he fails to draw on the vast storehouses of knowledge that have been accumulated, if he fails to profit by the wisdom and work of other men, which are now the common property of all intelligent men. He must use the instruments which the historians of the past did not have ready to hand. Yet even with these instruments he cannot do as good work as the best of the elder historians unless he has vision and imagination, the power to grasp what is essential and to reject the infinitely more numerous non- essentials, the power to embody ghosts, to put flesh and blood on dry bones, to make dead men living before our eyes. In short, he must have the power to take the science of history and turn it into literature. (Presidential Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 12; Nat. Ed. XII,11.
The great historian of the future must essentially represent the ideal striven after by the great historians of the past. The industrious collector of facts occupies an honorable, but not an exalted, position, and the scientific historian who produces books which are not literature must rest content with the honor, substantial, but not of the highest type, that belongs to him who gathers material which some time some great master shall arise to use. (At Oxford University, England, June 7, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 69; Nat. Ed. XII, 28.
The great historian must be able to paint for us the life of the plain people, the ordinary men and women, of the time of which he writes. He can do this only if he possesses the highest kind of imagination. Collections of figures no more give us a picture of the past than the reading of a tariff report on hides or woollens gives us an idea of the actual lives of the men and women who live on ranches or work in factories. The great historian will in as full measure as possible present to us the every-day life of the men and women of the age which he describes. Nothing that tells of this life will come amiss to him. The instruments of their labor and the weapons of their warfare, the wills that they wrote, the bargains that they made, and the songs that they sang when they feasted and made love: he must use them all. He must tell us of the toil of the ordinary man in ordinary times, and of the play by which that ordinary toil was broken. He must never forget that no event stands out entirely isolated. He must trace from its obscure and humble beginnings each of the movements that in its hour of triumph has shaken the world. (Presidential Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 21; Nat. Ed. XII, 19.
Unfortunately with us it is these small men who do most of the historic teaching in the colleges. They have done much real harm in preventing the development of students who might have a large grasp of what history should really be. They represent what is in itself the excellent revolt against superficiality and lack of research, but they have grown into the opposite and equally noxious belief that research is all in all, that accumulation of facts is everything, and that the ideal history of the future will consist not even of the work of one huge pedant but of a multitude of articles by a multitude of small pedants. They are honestly unconscious that all they are doing is to gather bricks and stones, and that whether their work will or will not amount to anything really worthy depends entirely upon whether or not some great master-builder hereafter arrives who will be able to go over their material, to reject the immense majority of it, and out of what is left to fashion some edifice of majesty and beauty instinct with the truth that both charms and teaches. A thousand of them would not in the aggregate begin to add to the wisdom of mankind what another Macaulay, should one arise, would add. The great historian must of course have the scientific spirit which gives the power of research, which enables one to marshal and weigh the facts; but unless his finished work is literature of a very high type small will be his claim to greatness. (To Sir George Otto Trevelyan, January 23, 1904.) Mem. Ed., XXIV, 164; Bishop II, 140.
See also Bryce, Lord; Car-Lyle, Thomas; Macaulay, Lord; Mahan, A. T.; Parkman, Francis; Trevelyan, Sir George Otto.
The last two generations have seen such immense additions to our archaeological and historical knowledge as completely to revolutionize our sense of values and proportions in this matter. We now know that the pre-history of man, during the period after he had become clearly human but before he had reached the lower levels of civilization or had learned to leave written records, covered a period of certainly two hundred thousand years, and probably twice as long. We have pushed the domain of actual history so far back into the past that Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, together with the later Judean kings and the great prophets, stand about in the middle of the age covered by written records; the first rulers of whom we have clear knowledge beside the Nile and the Euphrates were separated by almost as long a period of time from the last Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian sovereigns as is the period that divides these latter from us. (Outlook , February 14, 1917.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 38- 39; Nat. Ed. XII, 160-161.
If the proper study of mankind is man, then the proper study of a Nation is its own history, and all true patriots should encourage in every way the associations which record the great deeds, and the successes and failures alike, of the forefathers of their people. (Address before the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, January 24, 1893.) Theodore Roosevelt, The Northwest in the Nation-(Wisconsin State Historical Society, 1893), P. 93.
____________. I do not believe that any man can adequately appreciate the world of to-day unless he has some knowledge of—a little more than a slight knowledge—some feeling for and of—the history of the world of the past. (Charter Day Address, Berkeley, Cal., March 23, 1911.) University of California Chronicle, April 1911, p. 134.
____________. [A feature] of the growth in the position of science in the eyes of everyone, and of the greatly increased respect naturally resulting for scientific methods, has been a certain tendency for scientific students to encroach on other fields. This is particularly true of the field of historical study. Not only have scientific men insisted upon the necessity of considering the history of man, especially in its early stages, in connection with what biology shows to be the history of life, but furthermore there has arisen a demand that history shall itself be treated as a science. Both positions are in their essence right; but as regards each position, the more arrogant among the invaders of the new realm of knowledge take an attitude to which it is not necessary to assent. As regards the latter of the two positions, that which would treat history henceforth merely as one branch of scientific study, we must of course cordially agree: that accuracy in recording facts and appreciation of their relative worth and inter- relationship are just as necessary in historical study as in any other kind of study. The fact that a book, though interesting, is untrue, of course removes it at once from the category of history, however much it may still deserve to retain a place in the always desirable group of volumes which deal with entertaining fiction. But the converse also holds, at least to the extent of permitting us to insist upon what would seem to be the elementary fact that a book which is written to be read should be readable. This rather obvious truth seems to have been forgotten by some of the more zealous scientific historians, who apparently hold that the worth of a historical book is directly in proportion to the impossibility of reading it, save as a painful duty. Now I am willing that history shall be treated as a branch of science, but only on condition that it also remains a branch of literature. (At Oxford University, England,
____________. The immediate past I suppose can hardly be written of sufficiently dispassionately, because to write it truthfully you would have to give great offense to so many good people, who simply happened unfortunately to be in positions where any one would have done badly under the existing conditions, and who therefore did badly; and it would be hard upon them to hold them up to scorn or obloquy for what really wasn't their fault. In consequence it would be a very difficult thing to teach the lessons of history from what has occurred while the men who did the deeds are still living. (At Conference on Military History, American Historical Association, Boston, December 28, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 313; Nat. Ed. XVI, 235.
____________. The history of man himself is by far the most absorbing of all histories, and it cannot be understood without some knowledge of his prehistory. Moreover, the history of the rest of the animal world also yields a drama of intense and vivid interest to all scholars gifted with imagination. The two histories— the prehistory of humanity and the history of the culminating phase of non-human mammalian life— were interwoven during the dim ages when man was slowly groping upward from the bestial to the half- divine. (1916.) Mem. Ed. IV, 139; Nat. Ed. III, 303.
It is a very poor thing, whether for nations or individuals, to advance the history of great deeds done in the past as an excuse for doing poorly in the present; but it is an excellent thing to study the history of the great deeds of the past, and of the great men who did them, with an earnest desire to profit thereby so as to render better service in the present. In their essentials, the men of the present day are much like the men of the past, and the live issues of the present can be faced to better advantage by men who have in good faith studied how the leaders of the nation faced the dead issues of the past. (Introduction to A. B. Lapsley's Writings of Abraham Lincoln; September 1905.) Mem. Ed. XII, 446; Nat. Ed. XI, 205.
History can never be truthfully presented if the presentation is purely emotional. It can never be truth-fully or usefully presented. unless profound research, patient, laborious, painstaking, has preceded the presentation. No amount of self-communion and of pondering on the soul of mankind, no gorgeousness of literary imagery, can take the place of cool, serious, widely extended study. The vision of the great historian must be both wide and lofty. But it must be sane, clear, and based on full knowledge of the facts and of their interrelations. Many hard-working students, alive to the deficiencies of this kind of romance-writing, have grown to distrust not only all historical writing that is romantic, but all historical writing that is vivid. They feel that complete truthfulness must never be sacrificed to color. In this they are right. They also feel that complete truthfulness is incompatible with color. In this they are wrong. The immense importance of full knowledge of a mass of dry facts and gray details has so impressed them as to make them feel that the dryness and the grayness are in themselves meritorious. (Presidential Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1912. ) Mem. Ed. XIV, 5; Nat. Ed. XII, 5.
A number of women teachers in Chicago are credited with having proposed, in view of war, hereafter to prohibit in the teaching of history any reference to war and battles. Intellectually, of course, such persons show themselves unfit to be retained as teachers a single day, and indeed unfit to be pupils in any school more advanced than a kindergarten. But it is not their intellectual, it is also their moral shortcomings which are striking. The suppression of the truth is, of course, as grave an offense against morals as is the suggestion of the false or even the lie direct; and these teachers actually propose to teach untruths to their pupils. True teachers of history must tell the facts of history; and if they do not tell the facts both about the wars that were righteous and the wars that were unrighteous, and about the causes that led to these wars and to success or defeat in them, they show themselves morally unfit to train the minds of boys and girls. If in addition to telling the facts they draw the lessons that should be drawn from the facts, they will give their pupils a horror of all wars that are entered into wantonly or with levity or in a spirit of mere brutal aggression or save under dire necessity. But they will also teach that among the noblest deeds of mankind are those that have been done in great wars for liberty, in wars of self-defense, in wars for the relief of oppressed peoples, in wars for putting an end to wrong doing in the dark places of the globe. (New York Times, November 1, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 72; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 62.
It is hard indeed for the average man to appreciate rightly the relative importance of the different movements going on about him. American historians very often fail signally in this respect. Questions of the tariff or of the currency, and the rise and fall of parties connected therewith absorb their attention. In reality all matters of this sort are of merely minor importance in our history. The conquest of this continent by the white race; which branch of the white race should win for itself the right to make this conquest; the struggle between the different European nationalities, and between all of them and the original red lords of the land; the establishment of national independence; the building of the National Government; the long contest over slavery; the war for the preservation of the Union —these are the really great matters with which American history deals. (Independent, November 24, 1892.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 287; Nat. Ed. XII, 247.
I do not believe it is possible to treat military history as something entirely apart from the general national history. I will go a little further than that: I think it is utterly idle to try to understand the German victories in 1866 and 1870 unless you study the German history from the time when Stein and Scharnhorst began the reforms until those reforms reached their culmination under Roon and Moltke. I don't think that any study of the last sixty days' military operations in the Balkans would help you to understand what was done if you didn't study carefully the history of the Balkan people for at least a generation previous to this war that we have seen going on before our eyes. I am perfectly clear that the military history must be written primarily—not entirely, but primarily—by military men, and for that reason, I have felt that it should be written under the observation of the general staff, but I feel that there should be the collaboration of civilians with the military writers, and if those civilian writers are of the proper type some of the most important lessons will be taught by them, and they will be among the most important lessons because they will be lessons that the military man can't with propriety teach. They will be criticisms of the American Government and the American people. I don't wish to see the military history written by the general staff alone, because the general staff can t with propriety tell the whole truth about the government and about the people, to the government and to the people. (At Conference on Military History, American Historical Association, Boston, December 28, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 310.311; Nat. Ed. XVI, 235.254.
A nation's greatness lies in its possibility of achievement in the present, and nothing helps it more than the consciousness of achievement in the past. (Forum, February 1895.) Mem. Ed. XV, 14; Nat. Ed. XIII, 12.
History, taught for a directly and immediately useful purpose to pupils and the teachers of pupils, is one of the necessary features of a sound education in democratic citizenship. (Presidential Address, American Historical Association, Boston, December 27, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 7; Nat. Ed. XII, 7.
See also Archaeology; Current Events; Inscriptions; Mongol Invasions; Primitive Society.
See Frederick The Great; Willliam Ii.
See Christmas; Fourth of July; Memorial Day; Thanksgiving Day.
I thoroughly enjoyed my stay in Holland, both at The Hague and Amsterdam. The people were charming, and the crowd behaved exactly as if I was still President and home in America . . . . There was one thing I found really consoling about Holland. After the beginning of the eighteenth century it had gone steadily down-hill, and was very low indeed at the close of the Napoleonic wars. Since then it has steadily risen, and though the nation itself is small I was struck by the power and alertness and live spirit of the people as individuals and collectively. They had completely recovered themselves. When I feel melancholy about some of the tendencies in England and the United States, I like to think that they probably only represent temporary maladies, and that ultimately our people will recover themselves and achieve more than they have ever achieved; and Holland shows that national recovery can really take place. (To Sir George Otto Trevelyan, October 1, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 275; Bishop II, 235.
Tariffs, the currency, all kinds of other things that convulse the country and attract every one's attention, are not of any real consequence compared with having the right kind of men and women in the homes of the country. (Before Iowa State Teachers' Association, Des Moines, November 4, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 454; Nat. Ed. XVI, 340.
Nothing outside of home can take the place of home. The school is an invaluable adjunct to the home, but it is a wretched substitute for it. The family relation is the most fundamental, the most important of all relations. (At semicentennial celebration, founding of Agricultural Colleges, Lansing, Mich., May 31, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 189; Nat. Ed. XVI, 144.
____________. No institution will take the place of a home, and all proposals for rearing and educating children outside the home and supplying the place of parents by "trained educators" indicate a morbid pathological condition in the woman making the proposal. (Outlook , January 3, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 174; Nat. Ed. XII, 203.
I emphatically believe that for the great majority of women the really indispensable industry in which they should engage is the industry of the home. There are exceptions, of course, but exactly as the first duty of the normal man is the duty of being the home maker, so the first duty of the normal woman is to be the home keeper; and exactly as no other learning is as important for the average man as the learning which will teach him how to make his livelihood, so no other learning is as important for the average woman as the learning which will make her a good housewife and mother. (At semicentennial celebration, founding of Agricultural Colleges, Lansing, Mich., May 31, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XVIII , 187; Nat. Ed. XVI, 142.
No piled-up wealth, no splendor of material growth, no brilliance of artistic development, will permanently avail any people unless its home life is healthy, unless the average man possesses honesty, courage, common sense, and decency, unless he works hard and is willing at need to fight hard; and unless the average woman is a good wife, a good mother, able and willing to perform the first and greatest duty of womanhood, able and willing to bear, and to bring up as they should be brought up, healthy children, sound in body, mind, and character, and numerous enough so that the race shall increase and not decrease. (Before National Congress of Mothers, Washington, March 13, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 226; Nat. Ed. XVI, 165.
I tell you, Kermit, it was a great comfort to feel, all during the last days when affairs looked doubtful, that no matter how things came out the really important thing was the lovely life I have with Mother and with you children, and that compared to this home life everything else was of very small importance from the standpoint of happiness. (To Kermit Roosevelt, November 10, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XXIII, 387; Bishop I, 336.
The basis of good citizenship is the home. A man must be a good son, husband, and father, a woman a good daughter, wife, and mother, first and foremost. There must be no shirking of duties in big things or in little things. The man who will not work hard for his wife and his little ones, the woman who shrinks from bearing and rearing many healthy children, these have no place among the men and women who are striving upward and onward. (Before Young Men’s Christian Association, New York City, December 30, 1900.) Mem. Ed. XV, 533; Nat. Ed. XIII, 497.
Exactly as it is true that no nation will prosper unless the average man is a home-maker; that is, unless at some business or trade or profession, he earns enough to make a home for himself and his wife and children, and is a good husband and father; so no nation can exist at all unless the average woman is the home-keeper, the good wife, and unless she is the mother of a sufficient number of healthy children to insure the race going forward and not backward. (Metropolitan, May 1916.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 145; Nat. Ed. XIX, 142.
See also Children; Family; Happiness; Labor Conditions; Marriage; Sagamore Hill; Teachers; Women. Commission See Housing.
Much of our prosperity as a nation has been due to the operation of the homestead law. On the other hand, we should recognize the fact that in the grazing region the man who corresponds to the homesteader may be unable to settle permanently if only allowed to use the same amount of pastureland that his brother, the homesteader, is allowed to use of arable land. One hundred and sixty acres of fairly rich and well-watered soil, or a much smaller amount of irrigated land, may keep a family in plenty, whereas no one could get a living from 160 acres of dry pastureland capable of supporting at the outside only one head of cattle to every ten acres. In the past great tracts of the public domain have been fenced in by persons having no title thereto, in direct defiance of the law forbidding the maintenance or construction of any such unlawful inclosure of public land. For various reasons there has been little interference with such inclosures in the past, but ample notice has now been given the trespassers, and all the resources at the command of the government will hereafter be used to put a stop to such trespassing. (Second Annual Message, Washington, December 2, 1902.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 188; Nat. Ed. XV, 162.
You cannot have unilateral honesty. The minute that a man is dishonest along certain lines, even though he pretends to be honest along other lines, you can be sure that it is only a pretense, it is only expediency; and you cannot trust to the mere sense of expediency to hold a man straight under heavy pressure. I very early made up my mind that it was a detriment to the public to have in public life any man whose attitude was merely that he would be as honest as the law made it necessary for him to be. The kind of honesty which essentially consists merely in too great acuteness to get into jail is a mighty poor type of honesty upon which to rely; because, up near the borderline between what can and what cannot be punished by law, there come many occasions when the man can defile the public service, can defy the public conscience, can in spirit be false to his oath, and yet technically keep his skirts clear. (At Pacific Theological Seminary, Spring 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 620; Nat. Ed. XIII, 654.
____________. We firmly believe that the American people feel hostility to no man who has honestly won success. We firmly believe that the American people ask only justice, justice each for himself and justice each for all others. They are against wickedness in rich man and poor man alike. They are against lawless and murderous violence exactly as they are against the sordid materialism which seeks wealth by trickery and cheating, whether on a large or a small scale. They wish to deal honestly and in good faith with all men. They recognize that the prime national need is for honesty, honesty in public life and in private life, honesty in business and in politics, honesty in the broadest and deepest significance of the word. (At Madison Square Garden, New York City, October 30, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 462; Nat. Ed. XVII, 339.
If you have not honesty in the average private citizen, in the average public servant, then all else goes for nothing. The abler a man is, the more dexterous, the shrewder, the bolder, why the more dangerous he is if he has not the root of right living and right thinking in him—and that in private life, and even more in public life. Exactly as in time of war, although you need in each fighting man far more than courage, yet all else counts for nothing if there is not that courage upon which to base it, so in our civil life, although we need that the average man in private life, that the average public servant, shall have far more than honesty, yet all other qualities go for nothing or for worse than nothing unless honesty underlies them— honesty in public life and honesty in private life; not only the honesty that keeps its skirts technically clear, but the honesty that is such according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law; the honesty that is aggressive, the honesty that not merely deplores corruption—it is easy enough to deplore corruption— but that wars against it and tramples it under foot. I ask for that type of honesty, I ask for militant honesty, for the honesty of the kind that makes those who have it discontented with themselves as long as they have failed to do everything that in them lies to stamp out dishonesty wherever it can be found, in high place or in low. (At Washington, October 25, 1903.) Mem. Ed. XV, 465; Nat. Ed. XIII, 552.
It is, of course, not enough that a public official should be honest. No amount of honesty will avail if he is not also brave and wise. The weakling and the coward cannot be saved by honesty alone; but without honesty the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by every lover of righteousness. (Outlook, May 12, 1900.) Mem. Ed. XV, 444; Nat. Ed. XIII, 389.
It is not difficult to be virtuous in a cloistered and negative way. Neither is it difficult to succeed, after a fashion, in active life, if one is content to disregard the considerations which bind honorable and upright men. But it is by no means easy to combine honesty and efficiency; and yet it is absolutely necessary, in order to do any work really worth doing. (1897.) Mem. Ed. XV, xix; Nat. Ed. XIII, xvii.
The man who debauches our public life. . . is a greater foe to our well- being as a nation than is even the defaulting cashier of a bank, or the betrayer of a private trust. No amount of intelligence and no amount of energy will save a nation which is not honest, and no government can ever be a permanent success if administered in accordance with base ideals. (Forum, July 1894.) Mem. Ed. XV, 40; Nat. Ed. XIII, 27.
____________. Without honesty popular government is a repulsive farce. Outlook, November 11,.1911, p. 610.
I would rather go out of politics feeling that I had done what was right than stay in with the approval of all men, knowing in my heart that I had acted as I ought not to. (In the New York Assembly, March 2 1883.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 21.
____________. Before discussing questions dealing with the right of the people to rule and to secure social and industrial justice it is necessary to settle once for all that when the decision has been made by the people it shall not be reversed by force and fraud. We have a right to ask every honest man among our opponents, whatever may be his views as to the principles we advocate, heartily to support us in this fight for the elementary, the fundamental honesties of politics. The first and greatest issue before us is the issue of theft. Every honest citizen should join with us in the fight for honesty against theft and corruption. (At Chicago, June 17, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XlX, 305; Nat. Ed. XVII, 221.
You cannot have honesty in public.... life unless the average citizen demands honesty in public life. (Before the Hamilton Club, Chicago, September 8, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XV, 453; Nat. Ed. XIII, 541.
____________. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. . . . The number of public servants who actually take bribes is not very numerous outside of certain well- known centres of festering corruption. But the temptation to be dishonest often comes in insidious ways. There are not a few public men who, though they would repel with indignation an offer of a bribe, will give certain corporations special legislative and executive privileges because they have contributed heavily to campaign funds; will permit loose and extravagant work because a contractor has political influence; or, at any rate, will permit a public servant to take public money without rendering an adequate return, by conniving at inefficient service on the part of men who are protected by prominent party leaders (Outlook , May 12, 1900.) Mem. Ed. XV, 443; Nat. Ed. XIII 388.
____________. If you habitually suffer your public representatives to be dishonest you will gradually lose all power of insisting upon honesty. If you let them continually do little acts that are not quite straight you will gradually induce in their minds the mental attitude which will make it hopeless to get from them anything that is not crooked (At Pacific Theological Seminary, Spring 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 625; Nat. Ed. XIII, 659.
It is always best to look facts squarely in the face, without blinking them, and to remember that, as has been well said, in the long run even the most uncomfortable truth is a safer companion than the pleasantest falsehood. (The Sewanee Review, August 1894.) Mem. Ed.. XIV, 235; Nat. Ed. XIII, 204.
Honesty we must have; no brilliancy, no "smartness," can take its place. Indeed, in our home affairs both in the State and in the municipality, it has always seemed to me that what we need is, not so much genius as the homely, every-day virtues of common sense and common honesty. (Campaign Speech, New York City, October 5, 1898.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 448; Nat. Ed. XIV, 295.
See also Bribery; Business; Character; Corruption; Election Reforms; Falsehood; Mental Acuteness; Ten Commandments; Truth; Virtues.
See National Honor.
Mr. Hoover has been appointed as the man to lead us of this Nation in the vitally important matter of producing and saving as much food as we possibly can in order that we can send abroad the largest possible amount for the use of our suffering allies and for the use of our own gallant soldiers. Mr. Hoover's preëminent services in Belgium pointed him out as of all the men in this country the man most fit for the very position to which he has been appointed. Let us give him our most hearty and loyal support. (October 30, 1917.) Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, p. 38.
A good rider is a good rider all the world over; but an Eastern or English horsebreaker and Western broncobuster have so little in common with each other as regards style or surroundings and are so totally out of place in doing each other's work, that it is almost impossible to get either to admit that the other has any merits at all as a horseman, for neither could sit in the saddle of the other or could without great difficulty perform his task. (1888.) Mem. Ed. IV, 399; Nat. Ed. I, 302.
____________. Cross-country riding in the rough is not a difficult thing to learn; always provided the would-be learner is gifted with or has acquired a fairly stout heart, for a constitutionally timid person is peculiarly out of place in the hunting field. A really finished cross- country rider, a man who combines hand and seat, heart and head, is of course rare . . . . It is comparatively easy to acquire a light hand and a capacity to sit fairly well down in the saddle; and when a man has once got these, he will find no especial difficulty in following the hounds on a trained hunter; and after he has once taken to the sport, he will hardly give it up again of his own free will, for there is no other that is so manly and health-giving, while at the same time yielding so much fun and excitement. While he is learning horsemanship, by the way, the tyro had best also learn to show a wise tolerance for styles of riding other than that he adopts. At some of the meets, although unfortunately not by any means at all of them, he will see a few outsiders, who are not regular members of the hunt; and because one of these, perhaps, rides an army saddle, wears a slouch hat, and has a long-tailed horse, the man whose rig is of the swellest very probably looks down on him, while the slouch-hatted horseman, in return, and quite as illogically, affects to despise, as a mark of effeminacy, the faultless get-up of the regular hunt member. The feeling is quite as absurd on one side as on the other, and is in violation of the cardinal American doctrine of "live and let live." It is perfectly right and proper that the man who wishes to and can afford it should have both himself and his horse turned out in the very latest style; only he should then make up his mind to live well in the front, for it is hardly the thing for a man with a very elaborate get-up to be always pottering about in the rear or riding along roads. On the other hand, there are plenty of men who cannot or will not come except in the dress which happens to suit their own ideas; and certainly their appearance does not concern anybody else but themselves. It is the true policy to welcome warmly any man who cares for the sport, provided he is plucky, good-tempered, and rides his own line; and whether he wears a stiff silk hat, or a broad-brimmed felt one, has nothing whatever to do with the question. Century, July 1886, p. 339.
____________. The cowboy's scorn of every method of riding save his own is as profound and as ignorant as is that of the school rider, jockey, or foxhunter. The truth is that each of these is best in his own sphere and is at a disadvantage when made to do the work of any of the others. For all-around riding and horsemanship, I think the West Point graduate is somewhat ahead of any of them. Taken as a class, however, and compared with other classes as numerous, and not with a few exceptional individuals, the cowboy, like the Rocky Mountain stage-driver, has no superiors anywhere for his is own work; and they are fine fellows, these iron- nerved reinsmen and rough-riders. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 350; Nat. Ed. II, 300.
See also Cowboys.
You are all off about my horsemanship; as you would say if you saw me now. Almost all of our horses on the ranch being young, I had to include in my string three teat were but partially broken; and I have had some fine circuses with them. One of them had never been saddled but once before, and he proved vicious, and besides bucking, kept falling over backwards with me; finally he caught me, giving me an awful slam, from which my left arm has by no means recovered. Another bucked me off going down hill; but I think I have cured him, for I put him through a desperate course of sprouts when I got on again. The third I nearly lost in swimming him across a swollen creek, where the flood had carried down a good deal of drift timber. However, I got him through all right in the end, after a regular ducking. Twice one of my old horses turned a somersault while galloping after cattle; once in a prairie dog town, and once while trying to prevent the herd from stampeding in a storm at night. I tell you, I like gentle and well broken horses if I am out for pleasure, and I do not get on any other, unless, as in this case, from sheer necessity. (To H. C. Lodge, June 5, 1885.) Lodge Letters I, 30.
See Eight-Hour Day.
We of this country are just beginning to appreciate the social problems which have developed while our cities have been growing so marvelously and while our people have been over-absorbed in their industrial and commercial tasks. We are now becoming conscious of some of the unevenness which has naturally resulted from the rapidity of material growth, the over- absorption in material things; we are beginning to think of the neighbors and the neighborhoods which have been neglected. In a democracy like ours, it is an ill thing for all of us, if any of us suffer from unwholesome surroundings or from lack of opportunity for good home life, good citizenship and useful industry. It seems to me that your suggestions for the improvement of housing conditions in American cities are wise. Washington is not worse than other cities, but simply like them, in the fact that the living conditions of its less resourceful citizens need to be studied and improved. In appointing the Homes Commission I sought to begin for the National Capital such work as was accomplished for New York City by the several tenement house committees organized there at various times. Doubtless the work which has been inaugurated in Washington by the Homes Commission will need to be continued and extended, as you suggest, by a special philanthropic organization or by subsequent commission officially appointed. (To C. F. Weller, Secretary, The President's Homes Commission, September 8, 1908.) Charles F. Weller, Neglected Neighbors. (J. C. Winston Co., Phila., 1909), p. 1.
I pin my faith to woman suffragists of the type of the late Julia Ward Howe. Julia Ward Howe was one of the foremost citizens of this Republic; she rendered service to the people such as few men in any generation render; and yet she did, first of all, her full duty in the intimate home relations that must ever take precedence of all other relations. There was never a better wife or mother; her children rose up to call her blessed, and the Commonwealth should call her blessed for the children she bore and reared, for the character she transmitted to them, and the training she gave them in her household. We are fortunate in being able to point to such a woman as exemplifying all that we mean when we insist that the good woman's primary duties must be those of the home and the family, those of wife and mother; but that the full performance of these duties may be helped and not hindered if she also possesses a sense of duty to the public, and the power and desire to perform this duty. (Outlook , February 3, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 280; Nat. Ed. XVI, 211-212.
____________. She was in the highest sense a good wife and a good mother; and therefore she fulfilled the primary law of our being. She brought up with devoted care and wisdom her sons and her daughters. At the same time she fulfilled her full duty to the Commonwealth from the public standpoint. She preached righteousness and she practised righteousness. She sought the peace that comes as the handmaiden of well-doing. She preached that stern and lofty courage of soul which shrinks neither from war nor from any other form of suffering and hardship and danger if it is only thereby that justice can be served. She embodied that trait more essential than any other in the make-up of the men and women of this Republic— the valor of righteousness. (1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 221; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 189.
As between Mr. Hughes and Mr. Wilson, who can doubt which is the man who will, with austere courage, stand for the national duty? Mr. Wilson's words have contradicted one another; and all his words have been contradicted by his acts. Mr. Wilson's promise has not borne the slightest reference to his performance. We have against him in Mr. Hughes a man whose public life is a guarantee that whatever he says he will make good, and that all his words will be borne out by his deeds. Against Mr. Wilson's combination of grace in elocution, with futility in action; against his record of words unbacked by deeds or betrayed by deeds, we set Mr. Hughes rugged and uncompromising straight- forwardness of character and action in every office he has held. We put the man who thinks and speaks directly, and whose words have always been made good, against the man whose adroit and facile elocution is used to conceal his plans or his want of plans. Collier's, October 14, 1916, P. 43.
You have, of course, seen the result of the Presidential nominations here. I am having my own troubles with my fellow Progressives. They are wild to have me run on a third ticket. They feel that the Republican Convention was a peculiarly sordid body, a feeling with which I heartily sympathize. They feel that Mr. Hughes was nominated largely in consequence of the German- Americans who were against me, and largely also for the very reason that nobody knew anything of his views on living subjects of the day,—and a nomination made for such a cause is in my own judgment evidence of profound political immorality on the part of those making it. But Hughes is an able, upright man whose instincts are right, and I believe in international matters he will learn with comparative quickness, especially as I hope he will put Root into office as Secretary of State. Under these circumstances there is in my mind no alternative but to support him. At his worst he will be better than Wilson, and there is always the chance that he will do very well indeed. (To James Bryce, June 19, 1916.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 485; Bishop II, 413.
____________. In my judgment the nomination of Mr. Hughes meets the conditions set forth in the statement of the Progressive National Committee, issued last January, and in my own statements. Under existing conditions the nomination of a third ticket would, in my judgment, be merely a move in the interest of the election of Mr. Wilson.
I regard Mr. Hughes as a man whose public record is a guaranty that "he will not merely stand for a programme of clean-cut, straight-out Americanism before election, but will resolutely and in good faith put it through if elected." He is beyond all comparison better fitted to be President than Mr. Wilson. (To Progressive National Committee, June 22, 1916.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 570; Nat. Ed. XVII, 419.
I cannot make his fight for him or tell him how to fight. He must do his own battling, make his own plans. His danger is that he will not carry the fight to Wilson. If he does that he is safe. But if he allows Wilson to get the jump on him he is beaten. Wilson will do it with him if he does not watch out. As matters stand, and if the election were held to- morrow, Hughes is beaten. Here is the cruelty of this nomination of Hughes: For years he has been out of touch with real things; he knows nothing of the great things the Progressive Party movement stood for and did; he is out of touch with the man in the street; out of touch with national and world politics. He is nominated at a time when we needed an advocate—not a judge. I cannot but support Hughes. You see that as clearly as I do. It is the only thing for me to do because it is the right thing to do. . . . A term on the bench takes the punch out of many men; it slows them up. It may be that way with Hughes;
I don't know. But I do know that he must fight to win. (In conversation with Leary, 1916.) Talks with T. R. From the diaries of John J. Leary, Jr. (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1922), pp. 56-57.
See also Election of 1916.
See Property Rights.
We have lost the faculty simply and naturally to recognize that the essential traits of humanity are shown alike by big men and by little men, in the lives that are now being lived and in those that are long ended. (Outlook, August 26, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 442; Nat. Ed. XII, 100.
See also Brotherhood; Charity; Fellow -Feeling.
The qualities that make a good soldier are, in large part, the qualities that make a good hunter. Most important of all is the ability to shift for oneself, the mixture of hardihood and resourcefulness which enables a man to tramp all day in the right direction, and, when night comes, to make the best of whatever opportunities for shelter and warmth may be at hand. Skill in the use of the rifle is another trait; quickness in seeing game, another; ability to take advantage of cover, yet another; while patience, endurance, keenness of observation, resolution, good nerves, and instant readiness in an emergency, are all indispensable to a really good hunter. ( 1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 189; Nat. Ed. III, 21.
____________. In addition to being a true sportsman and not a game-butcher, in addition to being a humane man as well as keen-eyed, strong-limbed, and stout- hearted, the big-game hunter should be a field naturalist. If possible, he should be an adept with the camera; and hunting with the camera will tax his skill far more than hunting with rifle, while the results in the long run give much greater satisfaction. Wherever possible he should keep a note-book, and should carefully study and record the habits of the wild creatures, especially when in some remote regions to which trained scientific observers but rarely have access. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 173-174; Nat. Ed. III, 8-9.
____________. The mere fair-weather hunter, who trusts entirely to the exertions of others, and does nothing more than ride or walk about under favorable circumstances, and shoot at what somebody else shows him, is a hunter in name only. Whoever would really deserve the title must be able at a pinch to shift for himself, to grapple with the difficulties and hardships of wilderness life unaided, and not only to hunt; but at times to travel for days, whether on foot or on horseback, alone. How ever, after one has passed one's novitiate, it is pleasant to be comfortable when the comfort does not interfere with the sport; and although a man sometimes likes to hunt alone, yet often it is well to be with some old mountain hunter, a master of woodcraft, who is a first-rate hand at finding game, creeping upon it, and tracking it when wounded. With such a companion one gets much more game, and learns many things by observation instead of by painful experience. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 163; Nat. Ed. II, 142.
____________. Not only should the hunter be able to describe vividly the chase and the life habits of the quarry, but he should also draw the wilderness itself and the life of those who dwell or sojourn therein. We wish to see before us the cautious stalk and the headlong gallop; the great beasts as they feed or rest or run or make love or fight; the wild hunting camps; the endless plains shimmering in the sunlight; the vast, solemn forests; the desert and the marsh and the mountain chain; and all that lies hidden in the lonely lands through which the wilderness wanderer roams and hunts game. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 298; Nat. Ed. III, 112.
Most of the so-called hunters are not worth much. There are plenty of men hanging round the frontier settlements who claim to be hunters, and who bedizen themselves in all the traditional finery of the craft, in the hope of getting a job at guiding some “tenderfoot”; and there are plenty of skin-hunters, or meat-hunters, who, after the Indians have been driven away and when means of communication have been established, mercilessly slaughter the game in season and out, without more skill than they possess; but these are all mere temporary excrescences, and the true old Rocky Mountain hunter and trapper, the plainsman, or mountain man, who, with all his faults, was a man of iron nerve and will, is now almost a thing of the past. . . . The old hunters were a class by themselves. They penetrated, alone or in small parties, to the farthest and wildest haunts of the animals they followed, leading a solitary, lonely life, often never seeing a white face for months and even years together. They were skilful shots, and were cool, daring, and resolute to the verge of recklessness. On anything like even terms, they very greatly overmatched the Indians by whom they were surrounded, and with whom they waged constant and ferocious war. In the government expeditions against the plains tribes they were of absolutely invaluable assistance as scouts. They rarely had regular wives or white children, and there are none to take their places, now that the greater part of them have gone. For the men who carry on hunting as a business where it is perfectly safe have all the vices of their prototypes, but, not having to face the dangers that beset the latter, so neither need nor possess the stern, rough virtues that were required in order to meet and overcome them. The ranks of the skin-hunters and meat-hunters contain some good men; but, as a rule, they are a most unlovely race of beings, not excelling even in the pursuit which they follow because they are too shiftless to do anything else; and the sooner they vanish the better. (1885.) Mem. Ed. I, 30-32; Nat. Ed. I, 25-26.
See also Adventurer; Selous, F. C.; Washington, George; Wilderness.
It is still a moot question whether it is better to hunt on horseback or on foot; but the course of events is rapidly deciding it in favor of the latter method. Undoubtedly, it is easier and pleasanter to hunt on horseback; and it has the advantage of covering a great deal of ground. But it is impossible to advance with such caution, and it is difficult to shoot as quickly, as when on foot; and where the deer are shy and not very plenty, the most enthusiastic must, slowly and reluctantly but surely, come to the conclusion that a large bag can only be made by the still-hunter who goes on foot. Of course, in the plains country it is not as in the mountainous or thickly wooded regions, and the horse should almost always be taken as a means of conveyance to the hunting-grounds and from one point to another; but the places where game is expected should, as a rule, be hunted over on foot. This rule is by no means a general one, however. There are still many localities where the advantage of covering a great deal of ground more than counterbalances the disadvantage of being on horseback. (1885.) Mem. Ed. I, 120-121; Nat. Ed. I, 99.
____________. The older I grow the less I care to shoot anything except "varmints." I do not think it at all advisable that the gun should be given up, nor does it seem to me that shooting wild game under proper restrictions can be legitimately opposed by any who are willing that domestic animals shall be kept for food; but there is altogether too much shooting, and if we can only get the camera in place of the gun and have the sportsman sunk somewhat in the naturalist and lover of wild things, the next generation will see an immense change for the better in the life of our woods and waters. (Letter to Mr. Job used as Introduction.) Herbert K Job, Wild Wings. (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1905), p. xiii.
Of course in hunting one must expect much hardship and repeated disappointment; and in many a camp, bad weather, lack of shelter, hunger, thirst, or ill success with game, renders the days and nights irksome and trying. Yet the hunter worthy of the name always willingly takes the bitter if by so doing he can get the sweet, and gladly balances failure and success, spurning the poorer souls who know neither. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 105; Nat. Ed. II, 92-93.
In hunting, the finding and killing of the game is after all but a part of the whole. The free, self-reliant, adventurous life, with its rugged and stalwart democracy; the wild surroundings, the grand beauty of the scenery, the chance to study the ways and habits of the woodland creatures—all these unite to give to the career of the wilderness hunter its peculiar charm. The chase is among the best of all national pastimes; it cultivates that vigorous manliness for the lack of which in a nation, as in an individual, the possession of no other qualities can possibly atone. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, xxxi; Nat. Ed. II, xxix.
____________. Personally I feel that the chase of any animal has in it two chief elements of attraction. The first is the chance given to be in the wilderness; to see the sights and hear the sounds of wild nature. The second is the demand made by the particular kind of chase upon the qualities of manliness and hardihood. As regards the first, some kinds of game, of course, lead the hunter into particularly remote and wild localities; and the farther one gets into the wilderness, the greater is the attraction of its lonely freedom. Yet to camp out at all implies some measure of this delight. The keen, fresh air, the breath of the pine forests, the glassy stillness of the lake at sunset, the glory of sunrise among the mountains, the shimmer of the endless prairies, the ceaseless rustle of the cottonwood-leaves where the wagon is drawn up on the low bluff of the shrunken river—all these appeal intensely to any man, no matter what may be the game he happens to be following. But there is a wide variation, and indeed contrast, in the qualities called for in the chase itself, according as one quarry or another is sought. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 188-189; Nat. Ed. III, 21.
I have always liked "horse and rifle," and being, like yourself, "ein echter Amerikaner," prefer that description of sport which needs a buckskin shirt to that whose votaries adopt the red coat. A buffalo is nobler game than an anise seed bag, the Anglomaniacs to the contrary notwithstanding. (To H. C. Lodge, August 12, 1884.) Lodge Letters I, 7.
I always make it a rule to pace off the distance after a successful shot, whenever practicable—that is, when the animal has not run too far before dropping—and I was at first both amused and somewhat chagrined to see how rapidly what I had supposed to be remarkably long shots shrank under actual pacing. It is a good rule always to try to get as near the game as possible, and in most cases it is best to risk startling it in the effort to get closer rather than to risk missing it by a shot at long range. At the same time, I am a great believer in powder-burning, and, if I cannot get near, will generally try a shot any-how, if there is a chance of the rifle's carrying to it. In this way a man will now and then, in the midst of many misses, make a very good long shot, but he should not try to deceive himself into the belief that these occasional long shots are to be taken as samples of his ordinary skill. Yet it is curious to see how a really truthful man will forget his misses, and his hits at close quarters, and, by dint of constant repetition, will finally persuade himself that he is in the habit of killing his game at three or four hundred yards. (1885.) Mem. Ed. I, 38; Nat. Ed. I, 32.
____________. In killing dangerous game, steadiness is more needed than good shooting. No game is dangerous unless a man is close up, for nowadays hardly any wild beast will charge from a distance of a hundred yards, but will rather try to run off; and if a man is close it is easy enough for him to shoot straight if he does not lose his head. A bear s brain is about the size of a pint bottle; and any one can hit a pint bottle offhand at thirty or forty feet. I have had two shots at bears at close quarters, and each time I fired into the brain, the bullet in one case striking fairly between the eyes, . . .and in the other going in between the eye and ear. A novice at this kind of sport will find it best and safest to keep in mind the old Norse viking’s advice in reference to a long sword: “If you go in close enough your sword will be long enough." If a poor shot goes in close enough he will find that he shoots straight enough. (1885) Mem. Ed. I, 290; Nat. Ed. I, 241.
A really first-class hunting book . . . ought to be written by a man of prowess and adventure, who is a fair out-of-doors naturalist; who loves nature, who loves books, and who possesses the gift of seeing what is worth seeing and of portraying it. with vivid force and yet With refinement. Such men are rare; and it is not always easy for them to command an audience. (N. Y. Times Review of Books, October 13, 1918.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 550-551; Nat. Ed. XII, 410.
____________. The average big-game hunter writes a book about as interesting as a Baedeker, and nothing like as useful. I doubt if there is a less attractive type of literary output than an annotated game-bag, or record of slaughter, from which we are able to gather nothing of value as to the lives of the animals themselves, and very little even from the dreary account of the author’s murderous prowess. Some of the books by the best men err in exasperating fashion owing to a morbid kind of modesty which makes the writer too self-conscious to tell frankly and fully what he himself has done. This is sometimes spoken of as a good trait, but it is not a good trait, It is not as repellent as conceit or vulgarity, separate or combined, or as that painful trait, the desire to be "funny"; but it is a very bad trait, nevertheless. If a hunter thinks he ought not to tell what he himself has done, then he had much better not write a book at all. . . . . If the hunter does write, and is a keen observer, he should remember that, if he is worth listening to at all, his listeners will be particularly interested in hearing of any noteworthy experience that has happened to him personally. (Outlook, September 16, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 503-504; Nat. Ed. XII, 371-372.
My trip with the boys in Arizona was a great success, although it is rather absurd for me now to be going on such trips, for a stout, rheumatic, elderly gentleman is not particularly in place sleeping curled up in a blanket on the ground, and eating the flesh of a cougar because there is nothing else available. (To Arthur Lee, September 2, 1913.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 414; Bishop II, 352.
South Africa was the true hunters' paradise, if the happy hunting-grounds were to be found anywhere in this world, they lay between the Orange and the Zambesi, and extended northward here and there to the Nile countries and Somaliland. Nowhere else were there such multitudes of game, representing so many and such widely different kinds of animals, of such size, such beauty, such infinite variety. We should have to go back to the fauna of the Pleistocene to find its equal. Never before did men enjoy such hunting as fell to the lot of those roving adventurers who first penetrated its hidden fastnesses, camped by its shrunken rivers, and galloped over its sun-scorched wastes; and, alas that it should be written, no man will ever see the like again. Fortunately, its memory will forever be kept alive in some of the books that the great hunters have written about it. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 301; Nat. Ed. III, 114.
Hunting in the wilderness is of all pastimes the most attractive, and it is doubly so when not carried on merely as a pastime. Shooting over a private game-preserve is of course in no way to be compared to it. The wilderness hunter must not only show skill in the use of the rifle and address in finding and approaching game, but he must also show the qualities of hardihood, self-reliance, and resolution needed for effectively grappling with his wild surroundings. The fact that the hunter needs the game, both for its meat and for its hide, undoubtedly adds a zest to the pursuit. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 19; Nat. Ed. II, 17.
If it is morally right to kill an animal to eat its body, then it is morally right to kill it to preserve its head; A good sportsman will not hesitate as to the relative value he puts upon the two, and to get the one he will go a long time without eating the other. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III, 311; Nat. Ed. III, 122.
Of all sports possible in civilized countries, riding to hounds is perhaps the best if followed as it should be, for the sake of the strong excitement, with as much simplicity as possible, and not merely as a fashionable amusement. It tends to develop moral no less than physical qualities; the rider needs nerve and head, he must possess daring and resolution, as well as a good deal of bodily skill and a certain amount of wiry toughness and endurance. (1893.) Mem. Ed. II, 354; Nat. Ed. II, 304.
More and more, as it becomes necessary to preserve the game, let us hope that the camera will largely supplant the rifle. It is an excellent thing to have a nation proficient in marksman ship, and it is highly undesirable that the rifle should be wholly laid by. But the shot is, after all, only a small part of the free life of the wilderness. The chief attractions lie in the physical hardihood for which the life calls, the sense of limitless freedom which it brings, and the remoteness and wild charm and beauty of primitive nature. All of this we get exactly as much in hunting with the camera as in hunting with the rifle; and of the two, the former is the kind of sport which calls, for the higher degree of skill, patience, resolution, and knowledge of the life history of the animal sought. (Introduction to A. G. Wallihan's Camera Shots at Big Game, dated May 31,1901.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 581; Nat. Ed. XII, 437.
See also Antelope; Bear; Buffalo; Deer; Elk; Fox; Game; Moose; Rifle; Sheep; Wapiti; W Ild Life. HUSBANDS. A man must think well before he marries. He must be a tender and considerate husband and realize that there is no other human being to whom he owes so much of love and regard and consideration as he does to the woman who with pain bears and with labor rears the children that are his. No words Can paint the scorn and contempt which must be felt by all right- thinking men, not only for the brutal husband, but for the husband who fails to show full loyalty and consideration to his wife. Moreover, he must work, he must do his part in the world. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 194; Nat. Ed. XX, 166.
____________. Whenever a man thinks that he has outgrown the woman who is his mate, he will do well carefully to consider whether his growth has not been downward instead of upward, whether the facts are not merely that he has fallen away from his wife's standard of refinement and of duty. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 2o1; Nat. Ed. XX, 172.
See also Family; Home; Marriage; Women.
See Allegiance; American People; Americans, Hyphenated; Citizenship ; German-Americans; Irish-Americans.
Hypocrisy is as revolting in a nation as in a man; and in the long run, I do not believe it pays either man or nation. Out look, December 30, 1911, p. 1047.
____________. Reform is always held back by hypocrisy. Outlook , November 11, 1911, p. 611
I do not like the thief, big or little; I do not like him in business and I do not like him in politics; but I dislike him most when, to shield himself from the effects of his wrong- doing, he claims that, after all, he is a religious man." He is not a religious man, save in the sense that the Pharisee was a religious man in the time of the Saviour. The man who advances the fact that he goes to church and reads the Bible as an offset to the fact that he has acted like a scoundrel in his public and private relations, only writes his own condemnation in larger letters than before. (At Pacific Theological Seminary, Spring 1911.) Mem. Ed. XV, 614; Nat. Ed. XIII, 649.
It does make me flame with indignation when men who pre-tend to be especially the custodians of morals, and who sit in judgment from an Olympian height of virtue on the deeds of other men, themselves offend in a way that puts them on a level with the most corrupt scoundrel in a city government. (To William R. Nelson, late 1910.) Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, p. xx.
Hysteria does not tend toward edification; and in this country hysteria is unfortunately too often the earmark of the ultrapacifist. (Outlook,
It is not merely schoolgirls that have hysterics; very vicious mob-leaders have them at times and so do well-meaning demagogues when their heads are turned by the applause of men of little intelligence and their minds inflated with the possibility of acquiring solid leadership in the country. The dominant note in Mr. Bryan's utterances and in the campaign waged in his behalf is the note of hysteria. (Before American Republican College League, Chicago, October 15, 1896.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 394; Nat. Ed. XIV, 258.
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.