The Survival of the American Type

ON Tuesday, the 6th of March, 1894, Robert Ross, a representative American citizen, a man young, full of high hopes, and of irreproachable character, was shot at the polls in the city of Troy, by Bat Shea, a partisan of Murphy, the so-called City Boss. Ross had already suffered for liberty’s sake, and had, like Marcus Brutus, given his life for his country before he started on his country’s errand, resolved to do his duty as a citizen by protesting against Murphy’s repeaters. He knew that he was a marked man, and when a friend expressed fear for his life replied, “ Let fifty Rosses die, if only we can have a pure ballot.舠 As he lay on the ground dying in the midst of his enemies, his figure fitly marked the epoch in which we live, for he symbolizes that great struggle for survival which is now going on between the lingering type of Americanism and the alien element that surrounds it. It is doubtless a vivid though unintelligent sense of the situation that has given rise to the A. P. A. movement. In view of the facts, it becomes us not hastily to rebuke that which has its origin in a genuine national necessity, but to find, if we can, a wiser solution.

To one not familiar with our circumstances, the first feeling on becoming acquainted with them must be that of astonishment. A great people cross the seas, subdue a wilderness, found an empire, develop a new form of government, defend it with masterly courage, exhibit above all peoples the genius and force of statesmanship, and at the end of a century are found deliberately to have abandoned the sceptre to an alien race, and to be actually fighting the battle of liberty over again.

It may indeed be objected that this was true only in our great cities of the North ; but it is these same great cities which, by their vote for the American Constitution, saved the country from anarchy. They have always been the nerve centres of the republic. In 1787 they were its moral backbone. They have now become its deadliest menace. Their political corruption is fast stamping its imprint upon the whole country. Nor is the situation mitigated by the fact that the foreigner is not a bad fellow, who has often proved himself capable of becoming the best of citizens, and that it is only in the mass, and under the management of that American traitor called the “ boss,” that he has become an instrument for subverting our liberties. The fact remains that by the foreign majority, and its susceptibility to the management of traitors, the American people have been put outside of their own institutions, while those institutions themselves have been turned into an instrument of degrading tyranny. The intelligent are in the power of the unintelligent, and the situation is duplicated at the South, where the possession of the suffrage by the negro has compelled the American population to choose between misrule and practical rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. Now, when a people are actually put in such a position that their only escape from an alien and ignorant domination is either by a rebellion of some kind against their own institutions, or by some process as yet undiscovered, they may fairly be said to have entered upon a struggle for survival, and to be not unjustly counted in with other examples of the same sort, such as the American Indian and the bison. Happily, we are in the first stages of this epoch, but much depends on our distinctly recognizing where we are. However much it may cost us, we had better get rid of our pet illusions. Curiously enough, it has been urged against the restriction of emigration that foreigners alone do not make dangerous citizens ; that Americans themselves often turn into propagandists of anarchy ; and that many communities, as for example the State of Kansas, which are most pure blooded in their Americanism, are most alien to our national principles. But this only serves to bring out a fact which should make us more prudent in regard to both emigration and suffrage. If our organism for imprinting the national type on our people is so far defective that it fails to Americanize even considerable portions of our native-born population, then all the more must it fail to take hold of foreigners. It is madness to trust to luck.

The first thing to do is to inquire how the organism came to be so defective, and what is possible to it under the circumstances. Unless we restrict both emigration and the suffrage within the reasonable range of our assimilating organism, we must certainly come to grief. In fact, this defection of a large portion of our Anglo - Saxon population shows us both our greatest peril and the point at which the remedy must be applied. Doubtless one of our worst mistakes has been that we have trusted too much to heredity. Heredity will certainly do much. It can make a clan, but not a nation. A great free nation must cohere through the force of its national character, and the propagation of national character cannot be trusted to sex alone. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. But it may be asked, Do you think it essential that there should be a distinct organism for the reproduction of the American type ? I answer, It ought not to be necessary. The public schools, the Protestant churches (nay, the Catholic churches, when their priests, like Archbishop Spalding, plainly teach the separation of politics from religion), the national Constitution, the laws, the legislatures, the elections, even the trades unions themselves, when leaders like Powderly and Wilkinson stand up in an hour of trial for the American idea, all these are organs for reproducing the spirit of Americanism. Indeed, under a recent test, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has shown itself alive with true Americanism. But the trouble is that our organs are for the most part not performing their function. This is due to the fact that they are pervaded by an anti-American spirit; and here, beyond all question. lies our greatest peril. No American Protective Association can reach that. The foreign majority can be put down, and put out by force, should it come to such a sharp necessity, but an anti-American spirit among ourselves is a thing that can be put down only by conquering ourselves with the power of the truth: and this is an exceedingly difficult task, for the quality that gives force to our anti-American spirit is a specious humanity which claims the allegiance of our better nature. Its power lies in the element of good there is in it, and it can be eradicated only by an analysis sharp enough to separate the good, and distinctly brand the evil with which it is now identified.

As to humanity itself, let us thank God that, however mistakenly, we have followed it, for by following it we have been baptized with it. It has become the great creative force of our national life. Having gained the force, we are now to learn its use and limitations ; but first, we must rescue it by a struggle grander even than that by which it was obtained. One thing is becoming clear: humanity is not the supreme force. It may, as in the case of the French, lead to terrible mistakes where it is exalted above that truly supreme force, religion. Quite possibly that is one feature of our present peril. An insubordinate humanity, bent only on grasping material good, and trampling beneath its feet that unifying love of God which binds men into a spiritual brotherhood, may not unnaturally issue, as did the French Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, in a reign of hatred, for such a humanity is on the straight road to animalism. But whether this be so or not, there is food for solemn reflection in the fact that we have followed humanity now these ninety years, its inspired prophets marching before us, uttering their visions, holding up their undeniable verities, always demanding our absolute fealty, sometimes wildly attacking the Federal Constitution, often declaring the church a failure, and religion itself a monstrosity, because it could not follow fast enough, —nay, even avowing humanity itself the only religion. We have followed these prophets, I say, some ninety odd years, because we knew that their visions contained a reality, though we often suspected it of being confused. We have tried to share our freedom with foreigners, only to discover that freedom is not transferable. We have given the ballot to the negro, only to find out that an elector cannot be manufactured. The negro ballot meant a negro majority, and this in turn meant that the institutions of the country were to be under negro domination. This turns out to be impossible. Society will not cohere under such conditions. Intelligence cannot be ruled by ignorance. The higher force cannot be dominated by the lower. Nature will not tolerate it ; she prefers disintegration and reorganization. Indeed, it is now generally agreed that the reorganization of a state must be left to those who have the natural leadership, and that it is better to suffer and be patient than to attempt to force nature in the interest of humanity. In short, we have discovered beyond question the fact which we all along more or less feared, that our humanity has defeated itself. It has been humanitarianism rather than humanity ; for it is the characteristic of an “ ism “ that it does not stop to inquire carefully, or to work humbly and patiently.

Reckoning up profit and loss, our humanitarians have two items to their credit : the humanity itself, such as it is, and a tremendous lesson in respect to liberty, — namely, that liberty is not a thing that stands by itself, but is what the scientific people call an organic product, and that, as in the case of a strawberry, the only way to get it is to cultivate the stem, root, soil, leaves, and blossoms with which it belongs. This is important, because these same prophets of humanity who led us to give the ballot to foreigners and to the negro are still wildly urging us on. They are the real moral leaders of the present socialistic movement. They are still, in their old impetuous fashion, upbraiding the church, the state, the capitalists. Once it was the slaveholders that they particularly denounced ; now it is the rich. Once it was the slave States; now it is the general structure of society. “ Every poor man is a slave. The rich man has forged his chains.” Now, is it not about time that these prophets of humanity should stop and reflect ? May it not be that the welfare of the poor man, like that of the negro, may be actually imperiled by forcing nature in the interest of humanity ? May it not be that wealth and happiness as well as liberty stand together with some kind of organism, and that instead of madly trying to manufacture them, or to extract them out of capitalists, it would be better patiently to cultivate the stem on which they grow ? Is it not possible that humanity turned maniac from want of quiet reflection may, after having scuttled the ship, succeed in sinking her, and so wind up the business of humanity so far as this nation is concerned ?

This stands out more plainly if, instead of taking humanity by dribblets, we grapple the whole question at once. The instant we face humanity squarely, we find that the Chinaman and the Zulu are just as much on our hands as Mr. Debs is. Humanity knows no local bounds, no conventional relations or obligations. It binds us to do whatever we can for every man, wherever he is. Nor does it know any limitation of rich or poor. It binds us to help the wretchedest victim of the African slave trade toward happiness, but not, one whit less does it bind us to help the Prince of Wales in the same direction, if so be it in us lie. Furthermore, it bids us seek the real condition of human happiness, not what we imagine it to be, and then to attempt to secure it for every man. If, as has been lately assumed, wealth is the condition, and all that is required is a fair sharing of that wealth, then we are bound at once to divide with everybody. Not only are the capitalists bound to divide, but the labor unions. There are millions of men in Japan and China who earn only three or four cents a day : we ought to divide with them, — they will soon call upon us to divide with them ; and they are well off, relatively, to multitudes in other parts of Asia and in Africa, with whom also we shall soon be called to divide. The fact is, this is a poor world, and if wealth be the condition of happiness, and the equal distribution of it the means of promoting happiness, then we, not only our millionaires, but our working people, are terribly wicked. For most of our American workingmen are millionaires compared with the masses of humanity. Indeed, so great is the world’s poverty that a fair distribution would leave us each only enough to starve on, while industry, civilization, and education would all stand still together ; and as the little that each man had would soon be spent, and there would be no capital to furnish employment, the distress would be greater than it is now.

Humanity has more than once faced this problem through her most thoughtful and dutiful minds, and has shrunk back aghast. Then she has asked herself the question, What does nature mean ? We talk about the gifts of God, but in themselves considered these are a poor pittance. It is true that they may be made to yield untold wealth, but they must first be set free. One gift alone there is that can unlock the others : it is brains ; and this gift nature has most unequally distributed, nor can it be developed into any kind of efficiency save by work. Men must work together, cultivating the earth for centuries before there is developed a brain like that of Fulton or Edison, and then we see what nature has been driving at. She has been developing a human stem of industry on which wealth may grow. Doubtless she still holds for us inconceivable treasures, but they are all securely hidden ; before they can be ours there must be developed a new brain which shall unlock the secret door that conceals them. Nature never gives something for nothing. Her plan is organic ; she will give bread, but it must be grown on a wheat stem, through the labor of hands, but above all of brains. Furthermore, she keeps crowding us sharply on by our necessities. We must have more bread, and, in order to it, quicker hands and keener brains. For she is bent not so much on giving us external conditions of happiness as on making organs which shall be themselves sources of power and happiness. Neither is it her plan to make life easy. Indeed, it is by the direst pressure of necessity that she forces that sluggish animal, man, to wrestle with her for her gifts, and creates his manhood by a hard struggle for survival. Often she appears to fail to come to the rescue of her offspring in his utmost need. Sooner than withdraw the coercing force that develops manhood by a struggle for survival, she leaves the individual man to perish in his misery, like Lazarus at the gate of Dives ; so unrelenting is she in the law by which she develops her organs, so careful of the type she seems, so careless of the single life, so bent is she on fashioning manhood into a corporate whole, on developing it into a society by her organic method, for thus she stamps the type upon the individual. Every attempt to resist her has been in vain. Every endeavor to distribute wealth other than by her organic method has come to grief. She will not tolerate sameness. Distribute wealth equally, and society becomes but the poorer for it. She herself is really at the bottom of the inequality between men, for she gives to men unequal brain capacity, and hands are insignificant without brains. When she is left to herself, her irregularities are vast as those between oceans and ponds, between oaks and grass blades. But when we have looked on both sides, the advantage is often fearfully against Dives. The plutocrat has the most outward conditions of happiness, but Lazarus towers far above him as regards the inward sources of it.

To sum it all up, the question of humanity is an organic one. We often hear it said of a measure that it is generous, but it is not business. In other words, it is sacrificing the stem to the fruit, the plant to the produce. We also sometimes say that a man must be just before he is generous ; that means, strictly speaking, that we must first pay our dues to the plant before we can give away the produce. And this is precisely the limitation of humanity. Christianity, altruism, whichever you name it, puts us under obligations to do for all mankind what we can do. We are to be generous even to the point of suffering for others, but we must first pay our dues to the organism on which everything depends. When those dues are paid, justice ends and generosity begins. Give your vine its due in fertilizers ; take what is needed to support yourself, the cultivator; pay your hired laborer his wages; take care of your plant, and you may give away the rest of the produce. The plant and its progressive demands define the limitations of your humanity.

Now, nothing is more fundamental in the exercise of humanity than to keep clear this boundary line between justice and generosity. It is the lack of this plain distinction that lies at the bottom of our national peril; for there is a notion in the minds of our sentimental humanitarians that there is no such boundary line between rights and right, between our debt to the organism and our debt to humanity. To the minds of such people right is a line that shifts from age to age. Human progress is a battle between the “ Haves ” and “ Have Nots,” in which the “ Haves ” are wrong, and everything wrung from them a clear gain. It is the wicked rulers and capitalists who make the world’s poverty. But the real quarrel of these agitators is with nature, or with its Author. Their position has been somewhat naively expressed by Mrs. Gougar, who wishes she could be in the Almighty’s place for a few hours. This lady has an inkling of the real obstacle: we have to do with a structure of things that does not lend itself immediately and absolutely to the human will. Nature has a method of her own ; she develops first a central trunk or stem, and then the dependent branches. Through slow processes she evolves a great organic type, a creative solar man. a Charlemagne, William of Orange, Washington, or Lincoln. He is the statesman, the stem. By him unities are felt, grasped, and formulated ; around him society coheres ; his thought constitutes an atmosphere, a national spirit, that pervades men. He is nature’s king, ruler, or head. Around him lesser statesmen cohere, as the branches .cohere about the trunk; and so society is formed down to its last organ, the individual citizen, whose fruition in the direction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the object of the whole structure. Thus throughout the organic world nature specializes and differentiates her organs, and by this method builds her kingdoms and carries forward her evolutions. She creates a race through her stem Abraham, a language through her stem Dante. She creates the great republic through her stem Washington, restores it through her stem Lincoln ; yes, and even far down into the lower unities does she work still upon this plan, creating commerce through merchant princes, business through great men of business, industry through inventive and commanding men of industry. In all departments she carries forward her developments of mankind, upon that plan of which the solar system itself is the type, by a central organ and dependent organs. Equality of interests is her idea. Her plan is as much concerned for the benefit of the feeblest organ as that of the greatest. In fact, it is for the last and feeblest organ, the tender blossom of the spring, that she creates the whole, and to that purpose she severely subordinates the whole, consuming by her fires the trunk that will not minister its energies to the leaf and fruit. But equality of function, organic structure, or position she will not tolerate. She will not have her trees all trunks, or her solar system all suns, or a body all head. Her irregularities are vast, but wondrously balanced ; the organ that rules in one capacity serves in another. But against sameness she absolutely revolts.

Now from this standpoint it is possible to see that social development is not a mere struggle between the “ Haves ” and 舠Have Nots,” with no forces to settle the question but the desire of liberty in one class, and the sympathy for that desire in another. As a matter of fact, social development consists in a progressive adjustment of interaction between the stem and the branches, between nature’s ruler and his subjects, in which process we are continually learning, under the pressure of necessity, the great laws that govern it. Take, for example, the political world. First of all came the necessity for a stem about which society might cohere ; nay, a stem with force enough to compel cohesion, — when, as Carlyle says, wild armed men lifted the strongest aloft on the buckler throne and said, “ Be thou our acknowledged strongest, our king;” king, or König, meaning simply the man who is able, the man with energy strong enough and hold enough and rough enough to hold society together. That is the first grim primal necessity, a stem. Then came —for no stem can penetrate alone the varying needs of society — the branches, or ruling class, of the same material as the king. In the interaction that follows, this crude type of sovereignty, having vast physical force but small moral, sacrifices the interests of the dependent class, forgets nature’s eternal equality, and tramples on her inalienable rights. The subject rebels against this, but not alone, for nature stands by his side with poverty and famine and disease, solemnly averring that faithfulness to the interests of the feeblest subject is a thing that she will require at the hands of every one of her rulers. Then, as the process of interaction has gone on under the pressure of necessity, certain exaggerated powers have been wrested from the ruler, because these were in clear excess of his organic function and trespassed upon the interests that he was ordained to serve. The limitation of kingly power thus secured has been vested in the form of a charter or constitution. Then, to support the rights of the constitution, there has been developed the parliament, an assembly of the governing classes, to represent the interests of the realm. Parliament itself has then grown into a constitutional organ of government, holding in its hands the money power of the nation, so checking still more the tendency to insubordination on the part of the ruler. Following this has come the lower house. The intelligent and powerful middle class, the kings of industry and commerce, finding themselves not fully represented by hereditary legislation, assumed the function already inherent in them, and declared that those who created the wealth should be represented in the disposal of it. In this way there came to be a house of commons, or representatives, and a body of electors. Soon the body of electors is increased, as it seems evident that there must be a wider representation of interest. At first this new organ of the electorate is confined to the business of selecting members of the lower house, the organs of government being determined by heredity. Finally, however, under the pressure of environment, the defects of heredity appear, and the question arises, Why should not this new organ, the electoral body, take the place of heredity ? So the popular electorate becomes at last the final source of government.

Thus the whole process, which at a hasty glance seems to be a mere struggle for liberty, is, from the true point of view, a series of actions and reactions by which nature has been developing an organic political structure. Society has really been following the same process of growth as a tree. At first there was only the stem, with one or two subsidiary branches ; all else was inorganic. But as the nation has developed, a vital reciprocity has opened up throughout its structure. Each atom has grown into a living cell. The organs of political vitality have been widely distributed, until every genuine interest of manhood is represented by an organ that can in some way control the centre of vitality. Clearly, the progress has been from inorganic unity to organic unity, liberty being a condition of the latter. Parallel with this process and equally essential to liberty has been the differentiation of the political stem organ from those of religion, education, and industry. The fact has been revealed that in each of these great social formations nature operates precisely as she does in the political realm. The religious side of this truth was first brought out by Jesus in his claim to spiritual headship, while at the same time he distinctly disavowed all interference with temporal authorities. Since his day experience has shown that the religious and the political spheres both have their respective sovereignty, and that while they are interdependent, they are best developed without interference. The same is true of the industrial and the educational. Political government can at best only help these great social forces by seeing to it that they have sufficient scope, and that the law of their development is not intermeddled with.

The essential tiling in every department of the nation’s life is that the creative stem, man, should have free chance for development. The freer nature is, the larger and grander the personalities she will develop, and these personalities are the stems of all social growth. The result has not, of course, been reached without much experiment, much governmental persecution of preachers, teachers, and newspapers, and much arbitrary crushing of institutions generally ; as the outcome of it all, a sufficient experience of the unprofitableness of such attempts, and a verdict that the above-mentioned social forces may, with small protection. be trusted to take care of themselves. This at least is Anglo-Saxon experience, and is our reason for holding that government should be reduced to the minimum practicable point. Apropos of this point, as we look at history we see that it is only in connection with the AngloSaxon race that this evolution of government has steadily progressed. The Anglo-Saxon has, in the hands of nature, been more susceptible to the organic method. He has absorbed its features ; they have become a national characteristic, with salient traits, such as the love of justice, or, in other words, of what is due to the different organisms of the nation, and law-abidingness, or an inherent clinging to our national institutions. Probably one great secret of the Anglo-Saxon’s susceptibility to nature’s method has been the fact that in England and Scotland the spiritual stems have been strong. Religious leaders are often far more formal than spiritual, but from Wycliffe to Cromwell, and from Cromwell to Wesley, there have always been great spiritual types in England, — formative men who have stamped their impress upon the national character, who have generated an atmosphere of spirituality and created spiritual ideals. As a result, the masses of English and American people have been more penetrated than others with the sense of spiritual values and laws. The subjective has been with them a mighty force. The Puritan held the external conditions of happiness but a small thing; not Epictetus nor Marcus Aurelius was more philosophic concerning outward fortune. But with the Puritan it was more than a philosophy ; it was a passion, and it extended to the humblest classes. Indeed, he was above all things law-abiding toward the spiritual realm : the great thing with him was, not the land tenure, but the man tenure. He held himself a steward and servant of God : he could therefore tolerate no paternalism in government ; no power but God could be allowed to dictate to his conscience. Before such a stern and lofty idealism pope and prelate must needs give way ; even industrialism must be left free to God’s steward.

Thus the Anglo-Saxon has been the pith of the tree of liberty. His character has been the life of the organism. He has been inseparable from it, and it from him. This is the structure on which liberty has grown. The foundation of our freedom lies in the willingness of an Anglo-Saxon minority to submit to the majority; this is the cohesive force of the republic. Without this, anarchy would yawn before us. The AngloSaxon does not fear the triumph of the opposite party, because he knows it to have the same law-abiding characteristics as himself, and likewise because he knows that it will not attempt to rule except through the well-defined organism of government, which insures the protection of rights. The moment a party majority gives evidence of lacking in Anglo-Saxon characteristics, he begins to be anxious. He no longer thinks the government organism a sufficient protection. He trembles lest the official patronage should, in the hands of an unAmerican majority, pervert the government into a mechanism of tyranny. His fears have been justified ; it is precisely what has happened. Free institutions, deprived of that type of life which is their sap and strength, have shown themselves capable of becoming a harborage of the worst political vermin.

To sum up matters, the question of humanity is the question of an organism. Nature is sternly coercive; if we give away her organisms, she will make us cultivate them again in tears and blood. She distributes her treasures through organism and through type, and it is the type, the ever evolving type, on which she is bent; for that everything else must wait. To it she sacrifices not only the single life, but, if necessary, multitudes of lives, not because she is unmerciful, but because her mercy is in the type. Therefore she is patient. She counts not the age of slavery too long if through it she may evolve an Epictetus, and crucifixion not too dark a tragedy if through it she may bring forth her Christ; for by her Epictetus, and yet more by her Christ, does she give character to her lives, and on the stem of character she builds the organic nation, with its wealth, liberty, and happiness. Now it is this sacrifice of the life to the type against which the animal in us rebels. Nature exalts the type above the life ; she exalts the subjective condition of happiness above the objective. Animalism has exactly the opposite creed : it believes in putting the life first, and the type afterwards ; it values the objective condition above the subjective. In its impatience it cannot wait for the type ; it insists on having the outward circumstances first. This is the rot of nations ; it destroys the ethical manhood, which is the backbone of every free nationality. This creed appears in the business man, whose ideals are sensuous, who cares more for wealth than for citizenship, who refuses to see that his money makes him the organ of the state and the steward of humanity. He is the original generator of the anti-national spirit: he first spreads the sentiment that the life is worth more than the type. It is not the colossal fortunes that hurt us, but the brutalizing creed which they too often illustrate, that the external is worth more than the inward. It is the impious prostitution of wealth from nature’s purpose ; it is the lie that a rich man utters when he parades as though money actually exalted him above his fellows. For outward circumstances cannot of themselves make any such inequality among men : it is brains that make the real inequality ; it is character that builds the awful heights. The gulf between Dives and Lazarus is fixed at last, not by fortune, but by Dives himself, who says by his ostentation, “ See how far above that poor wretch I am ; we do not belong to the same class.” But nature is pitiful, and when the great gulf becomes at last fixed it turns out to be Dives who is at the bottom of it. The spectacle of to - day is the creative facility of wealth ; and when rich people choose to create such a society for the world’s edification as is depicted in Mr. Warner’s Golden House, it is not wonderful that hasty human nature revolts with a spark of divine indignation, and hankers to pitch the whole edifice into Tartarus ; nor can it be wondered at if even Christian philanthropists, when they contrast such a spectacle with the awful poverty at its gates, should avow that wealth is the devil, and that our only hope is in binding both him and his angels. But when we see, as we often do, a vast fortune in the hands of a noble creative man like Plutarch, or William of Orange, or Howard the philanthropist, we then understand that wealth is not only a bond of brotherhood, but the condition for the development of a great type of humanity.

Such types are the progenitors of a noble national life. Deny to the grand personality its office, and you destroy the type. Contract the womb, and you spoil the child. Nor would it do any good to abolish the forms of wealth ; the lie would remain. It is animalism that creates the illusion; it is this that is undoing us ; it is anti-national because it is anti-ethical; unable to see the value of the type, it mistakes the organism for a machine, and gives birth to machine politics. Occupying a false view point, it is always onesided. In its eagerness for liberty, it insists that every person shall have the ballot: it is blind to the fact that liberty depends not so much on the possession of the ballot as on its being in libertyloving and intelligent hands ; that the electorate is in reality an organ of the government; and that the essential characteristic of an organ is that it should be filled by the true type of vitality. Thousands of men have risen to power, enjoyed all the liberty they wanted, and changed the course of the world, without having the right of suffrage. Its possession by every man is not essential to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness on his part, but its being held by trustworthy men, who are themselves true types of the nationality, is absolutely essential to everybody s welfare.

Again, in its eagerness after popular sovereignty, this one-sided humanity has attempted to exalt one organ of the state at the expense of another ; it has made the elector everything, the legislator nothing ; it has Stripped from the statesman all statesmanship, making him a public servant in the lowest sense of the word, and developing in him the worst vices of servility. Men of that stamp are indeed servants of the people. They have ceased to be stems. In an hour of deadly peril like the Chicago strike, they wait to see which way the popular tide will turn. They degrade the national organ to which they belong. Destitute of the type of sovereignty, it ceases to be sovereign. Apropos of this is the notion that one man is as good as another, and that every man should have his turn at governing. Such an idea is not business; it would be death to a bank or a mercantile house to conduct it on such principles, and it is death to the nation ; it is casting contempt on the type ; it is emptying the organ of its life blood, and fearfully has it told upon us. Already are we a spectacle to foreigners ; they say well that we have no respect for our own institutions, no faith in the people. Nor is it strange, since we have reversed nature’s methods, so careless of the type we seem, so careful of the single life. This is truly an anti-American spirit, the opposite of that breathed forth by Washington and Lincoln ; but it is the humanitarian aspect of this animalism that is most to be dreaded, for here the illusion is worst. Folly is transformed into an angel of light, yet, fool-like, it can see but a single interest. Formerly its eye was on the negro, its single aim to secure his liberty against his oppressor; now it is fixed on the workingman, but it is on one kind of workingman, and on one stage of his development. In the first stage, he must be so protected that he can let the labor of his hands for the largest price ; he must be free to exercise generosity as he sees fit; nor must he be compelled to help his fellow-laborer, but as soon as he has a room in his tenement to let he becomes a landlord, and now this sentimental humanitarianism would dictate to him how he shall let, and when he must be generous. Still further, when he accumulates a little money, and so becomes a capitalist, there must be a law to dictate to him the terms on which he shall let his capital, and to arbitrate between him and his employee.

This one-sidedness is illustrated by the savage attacks upon Mr. Pullman. From the stage of labor he had risen to the stage of capital ; he had become a stem of industry ; into his hands hundreds of men put their savings, many of these stockholders being people of small means. Mr. Pullman was their trustee ; the surplus of his company was their guarantee, it stood instead of a mortgage bond; nothing could be more desirable for the country than his reciprocity between the small savings and the industrial stem. Now the singular thing is that no one thought of attacking Mr. Pullman for want of generosity in the use of his private fortune, but there has been a universal howl against him for not being generous with other people’s money : he should have reduced his rents though it cut into his surplus, invalidated the security, and lowered the stock at the cost of thousands of dollars to his stockholders. Not only should he have been generous at other people’s expense, but he should have called it justice. Not only ought he to have done it, but he should have been compelled by government to do it, and for want of governmental interference he should be compelled by anarchy to do it. Actually, the popular attitude towards these small investors has been simply this : Go to Canada with your small savings; you have no rights in the case which we are bound to respect. This is a duel between riches and poverty. The intermediate stages are “beyond the pale.”

Such an attitude is not only antiAmerican, and opposed to the old Anglo-Saxon bill of rights, but it is essentially anarchical. Beside, the question how much is due to the workingman is not one of abstract justice, — no man gets his moral deserts in the industrial world; the question what a man’s work is worth depends on how essential it is to the business organism. This is the only practical criterion for commercial justice ; and taking it as the criterion, it is by no means certain that the workingman is not receiving more than his share. In that case, the question of help for him becomes one of generosity, not of justice, precisely as it would in the case of a poor author or physician. On the other hand, if we throw away the organism, in behalf of the American workingman, and attempt to give him his moral valuation or his worth as a brother man, we are equally bound by the principles of humanity to do it for the Chinese or “ the poor authors.” Doubtless the industrial organism is a slow instrument for distributing wealth, but it has the merit of being nature’s institution ; it develops the type, the man of business genius, who is nature’s stem and wealth creator; furthermore, it coerces all men in the direction of industry, economy, and skill. True, it is hard on the shiftless and the incapable, but it is better we should reach them by charity than give up the organism which develops type and stem. Certainly there is great suffering, but the sooner we realize it is to be relieved by existing forces, and throw the responsibility upon them, the better. Organized benevolence will then become what it has never been before ; and that brings us to the question which anti-Americanism has forced upon us.

Shall we develop the present forces, or shall we throw away nature’s plan and give up the Anglo-Saxon organic nation in which law is reduced to a minimum ? Shall we abandon free benevolence, and go back to paternalism and militarism ? It takes genius to create a first-class illusion. and socialism has of late had genius on its side. We read Mr. Bellamy’s Looking Backward, and feel the same drawing to his Utopia that we felt towards the patriarchal institution when we read the first volume of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The devil really is not in it; no bill of rights seems necessary ; the institution produces nothing but Uncle Toms, little Evas, and St. Clares. It is not till Legree appears that we realize how entirely this benign aspect was due to the concentration of light on a certain negative type of character. It must be the type, after all, even in socialism, that decides our happiness. Some one ought to write a second volume of Looking Backward, in which Mr. Bellamy’s colorless officials should take the background, and the political organs of the industrial army should appear, with Mr. Debs as commander in chief. The opening chapter should deal with the last Anglo-Saxon struggle for liberty against the resistless patronage of the socialistic party which held in its hands all the railroads, telegraph lines, and mines in the country. It should describe the immensely preponderating foreign element in this new party ; the loss of confidence on the part of the Anglo-Saxon minority ; the resulting anarchy and bloodshed ; the final seizure of the government by trades unions, under the leadership of some crafty “boss.” It should go on to describe the political structure of the new nation : how, in the new paternalism, an ignorant foreign majority took the place of the papacy, dictating to men’s consciences when they should be generous ; how it soon became necessary that religion and education should come under the paternal system, since the power which controls altruism must likewise control the social forces that lead to it; how one step toward tyranny led to another ; how tyranny inevitably tended toward autocracy ; and how at last that same single, forcible, shrewd head of the Cæsar once more appeared on the throne of the temporal and spiritual world, and so the “look backward” was complete. There should be a chapter, too, on the personal aspects of the inorganic Altruria: how men sank into mere automata; how personal interest in work died out because everything fell into a dead sameness ; how individuality ceased because no man had any breadth of field in which to exercise it; how creative power failed for want of property ; how men shirked because they were doing government work ; how manliness perished because every man was taken care of by the state; how life became feeble because all the great types failed ; how character became inert because nature ceased to be coercive ; how altruism itself at last collapsed because it was enforced, and generosity died out because the secret of generosity is liberty.

I do not say that Altruria is impossible; on the contrary, I believe it is coming; what I do say is that the type must come first, and we are very far yet from the type. We have not yet an electorate pure enough or intelligent enough to be trusted with the first step towards socialism, the control of the railroads ; our political stems, our Murphys and our Debses, have still too much murderous ambition. Nor do I believe that Altruria, when it comes, will be a reversal of the order of evolution, and a return to the inorganic nationality. I believe it will come, not through paternalism and militarism, but through larger liberty, through wider spheres of personal development, through greater individual wealth and nobler creative types. But the immediate peril of socialism is that it furnishes the animating spirit for anarchical societies. It creates a fiery illusion by putting things in a false light. This is dangerous because we are confronted with an enormous mass of men who do not think things out for themselves. They are organized into trades unions. These socialistic theories are to them what the loose ideas of the aristocratic and literary reformers were to the Jacobin clubs of France before the Revolution. But there is this vast difference in the times : liberty with us has already gone further than the structure of the organism can safely permit; to stretch it yet more means the loss of it. Yet these trades unions are wild for advance ; they are a vast disciplined army, ready at a moment’s notice to precipitate a war. They are inflamed by their false creed ; they fancy themselves grievously wronged. Even if a wrong exists but in fancy, no one will sit quietly under it, nor will they. They are determined to right themselves, peaceably if possible, but should it require force they do not mean to fail; they do not wish anarchy, but, as the Chicago strike revealed, they prefer it to failure, and their madness at the President’s interference reveals the direction in which they mean to move. They propose to have presidents and governors who agree with them.

As John Adams said when he heard the guns at Lexington, “ It is a glorious morning.” Nature has brought us into a place where we must lose our liberty or develop a new citizenship. That new citizenship has already appeared, thank God. It has had its proto-martyr. It now has, in New York city at least, its determined leader. Men are rallying around it; they are being recruited from all nationalities ; it is a unifying hour ; the great battle of liberty has at last come. There is genuine goodness in the country, but it has been nebulous and inert; it has been fiddling while Rome burnt; it is now awaking to facts. The call is for a party of the republic which, like Robert Ross, shall hold the type above the life ; whose motto shall be, like his, Perish all lesser interests, if we can have a purified nation. Good will it be for us if we know in this our day the things that pertain to our peace, for nature will not step aside out of her course from deference even to the greatest of her republics ; she has one law for them all, the law of the organism ; nor does she ever suffer the national pyramid to stand upon its apex. The unintelligent do not rule the intelligent for long. Of two evils, men always choose the less. They fly from anarchy. Society must cohere, and it always coheres about a man who is able. Personality must come to the front. If there is enough of the national stock with which to furnish her organs, nature will have a republic as she did in Rome. If the stock runs short, she contracts her organs, and men pass under the tutelage of an empire. It is the organic that is possible. Whatever we have developed fit organs for we can reach; nothing else.

There sat in the imperial seat of Rome, long after the republic had passed away, a type of the old stock, whom nature had preserved for her beneficent work. For him the republic had existed and passed. Of him Frederick Maurice says : “ Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek, he dwelt in all the effeminacy of a court, but he desired above all things else, he says, to be a male and a Roman.” “ What he meant by that we can understand by his acts, and also from his thoughts ; for he is one of those who lets us into the secrets of his life ; who has told us what he was striving to be, and what helps and hindrances he met with in his strivings. He had evidently taken account of the causes which had made the Roman the ruler of the world ; he had seen that self-restraint had been one main secret of his power; that reverence for the relations in which he found himself had been another ; that out of both bad come the habit of obedience, the only security for the fidelity of the citizen. His meditations exhibit a man who is striving by all means that he knows of to recover something which he feels has departed or is departing from his country, from those who are governing in it, from those who are serving in it.”

Wonderful is this care of nature for the type ; its own prolonged struggle, too, for survival, though reduced to a single man, a solitary headland against the tide of anarchy, the sole governmental organ of that state which could no longer be a republic, not even a limited monarchy, because there was not enough of the governing type left out of which to make constitutional organs. Years before, the transcendent intellect of Julius Cæsar had grasped the situation and foreseen the only possible form of government left for Rome. Two organs alone were possible, an imperator and an army. This was the fact that the eloquent Cicero and the noble Brutus were not clear-headed enough to see. They thought they could reverse history ; unfortunately, it was natural history, and the battle of Pharsalia showed the irreversibility of organic law. The Roman stock was gone, the live tissue dead, and the Roman constitution which had conquered the world fell like a rotten trunk in a storm.

John H. Denison.