THE NATION'S IDEALS

The United States was "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Before its advent as a nation, and for many years thereafter it was the haven of the oppressed of other lands. Its early inhabitants were willing to revolt against their mother country to fight for their independence in a war whose idealistic motive was the desire for selfgovernment. In its international relations the new democracy, among a variety of policies, pursued three which might be termed dominant, the policy of isolation from the concerns of Europe, the policy of non-interference by foreign powers in the affairs of this country, and later the policy of the open door and the integrity of China. During its early period of rapid growth and expansion, it was controlled by a spirit of individualism which in its more mature development is gradually giving place to the ideal of public interest.

These ideals have helped to develop the United States from a weak union of thirteen states concentrated on the Atlantic border and having less than 4,000,000 inhabitants to a strong union of forty-eight states stretching from ocean to ocean, having a population of 105,000,000 people, and occupying the position of world

power.

The majority of these ideals had their inception in the motives which induced the early colonists to leave home and country, brave ocean and wilderness, to settle a new land. Political, religious, and economic oppression in Europe made them seek more freedom and greater opportunity in the new world. To the restless, dissatisfied, ambitious, and adventuresome, America came to be symbolized as the haven of the oppressed, the land of greater opportunity, the home of liberty, and the country offering the widest measure of self-government.

SELF-GOVERNMENT

Colonial Period. The settlers of New England hoped to establish an ideal commonwealth in which they might set up their own

forms of religion and govern themselves according to their own ideas. While this desire for self-government did not motivate the settlement of all the colonies, it soon took root in American soil as it had in English. The colonists did not forget their heritage as Englishmen. Democracy, as we know it to-day, did not exist in either England or the colonies, but the ideal was present in both. It had a particularly good chance to flourish in the colonies. They were widely separated from the mother country and in them all men were more nearly on a plane of equality. With the exception of Pennsylvania, the colonial legislatures were divided into two houses. In general, the upper house was appointed by the crown; the lower house was elected by the people. At the head of colonial affairs was the governor. In the majority of colonies he also was appointed by the crown. Through their power to vote taxes and to obstruct the aims of the governor and the upper house, the representatives of the people exercised a wide control over their own local affairs. These were of more immediate and vital concern than the question of external relations which was wholly in the hands of the crown.

The germs of self-government were present at this early date, but the suffrage was restricted by property, religious, race, and sex qualifications. These effectively disfranchised a majority of the inhabitants who had no direct voice in the government. The vast bulk of the Negroes were slaves. There were many white persons bound for a certain period of time as servants. The women, as a class, had no share in the political life of the new settlements, and a portion of the free white males could not meet the restrictions placed upon the suffrage. Yet probably a comparatively greater number of the male colonists were enfranchised and had a wider measure of self-government than existed elsewhere. According to the viewpoint of the day, slaves, servants, and women had no place in political life. Small thought was given to the fact that they were disfranchised. Any agitation that did exist for an extension of the right to vote concerned itself, for many years to come, with free white male suffrage. The opportunities to advance and the ease with which land was acquired in most of the colonies gave the ambitious man a chance to acquire property and to participate, to some extent at least, in the political affairs of the colony.

As the years passed the colonies grew in population, acquired the comforts of civilization, and class divisions became more distinct. A small wealthy and economically dominant class in each colony drew more and more power into its own hands and had a

SELF-GOVERNMENT

5

controlling voice in the colonial assemblies. It was against such class control almost as much as against the attempt of Great Britain to bring the colonies under more rigid imperial administration that the Revolution was fought. It was the radical element in practically every colony which pushed colonial resistance to its logical conclusion, complete independence. The Declaration of Independence reflects this double significance of the Revolution. The reasons which necessitated the revolt against Great Britain are there expressed. The rights of every man to liberty, equality, and self-government are there expounded.

The Constitution. With the successful termination of the Revolution, the people were faced with the difficult tasks of securing unity, instituting a stable government, quelling the disorderly elements released by war, and putting the country and its people on a firm economic basis. The idealistic spirit of the Revolution was replaced by the material facts of every-day existence. The questions of extending the franchise and giving the common people a wider measure of democracy gave way to the pressing need of imparting strength and meaning to the feeble confederacy called into being by the Revolution. For several years the states were bound together by the Articles of Confederation which placed most of the power in the hands of the separate states and made provision for a weak federal congress. It gradually became evident that a union bound together by such loose ties was a union in words only. It had no standing with outside powers. It was unable to aid the states in reëstablishing law and order and in promoting commercial and business prosperity. The propertied classes in particular were anxious for a strong central government to guard and advance their interests. It was largely through their instigation that the Constitutional Convention was called. The members of the convention were predominantly from these same classes. While they were undoubtedly desirous of giving the country the best possible instrument of government, they were influenced by their own interests and their own outlook on life. To have vested too much power in the masses would, they believed, be dangerous and ill-advised. It was wiser for men of property, position, and education to manage the affairs of the nation, for they were better fitted for the task. The Constitution represents a compromise between the ideal of a people's government held by the radical elements in the nation and the ideal of a government controlled largely by the upper classes held by the more conservative group. It likewise represents a compromise between the great and the small states and between those

people who believed in a strong state and weak federal government and those who upheld a strong central government even at the expense of state control. It provided for a tripartite sytem of government-executive, legislative, and judicial. These three branches were designed to check and balance one another so that no one of them would gain too great control. The executive power was vested in a president, the legislative power in a congress, the judicial power in a supreme court and inferior

courts.

The people were not entrusted with the right to choose the President and Senate directly. An indirect method of election was provided. The executive was given wide powers but his control was held in check by Congress. That body was given the right to pass measures over his veto by a two-thirds majority of both houses. The Senate was intended to be a small select body in which all the states would be equally represented. Each state was allowed two senators. Not expecting the Senate to be chosen directly by the people, the authors of the Constitution intended that it should protect the minority interests of the upper class and offset the power of the people's body, the House of Representatives. The House was elected directly by the people and was expected to be particularly mindful of their interests. The most populous states were given a preponderance of representatives in the House. Each state was represented according to the size of its population. The judiciary consisted of a system of federal courts with a supreme court at the head. Its members were far removed from popular election and were appointed by the executive. They were expected to decide any cases arising under the Constitution. They came to serve as a sort of umpire between the state and federal governments, should the one infringe on the province of the other. All powers not expressly delegated to the national government by the Constitution and not expressly denied to the states were considered to belong to the states or to the people. This principle was later embodied in the tenth amendment.

The Constitution, when submitted to the states for ratification, met with much opposition. Large numbers of people in every state were opposed to ratification. In general it secured greater approval from the conservative and propertied classes than from the more radical groups. The vote of the state conventions held to consider its adoption was very close in several of the states. A change of ten votes in Massachusetts, six in Virginia, six in New Hampshire, two in New York would have prevented ratifica