Part 8

FRANCES D’ARUSMONT

Frances D’Arusmont, better known as Frances Wright, was born in Dundee, Scotland. She seems to have inherited the intellectuality and liberal feeling of her father, who was a man of independent means and considerable accomplishments. Scarcely three years after her birth in 1795, she lost both her parents and was brought up by a maternal aunt in England. She was largely self-educated, and from early youth was keenly interested in history, particularly the history and condition of the United States. This interest found definite expression in her determination to sail for America in 1818, where she spent two years in the States, publishing in 1821 her “Views of Society and Manners in America,” a series of letters to a friend in England. While it is true that these letters are filled with prepossessions, they had a wholesome effect in counterbalancing a great deal of ignorance about and prejudice against the United States at that time. After going back to Europe for a short stay, she returned to the United States in 1824, eager to solve the slave question. In pursuance of this desire she bought a tract of land in Tennessee, about fourteen miles northwest of Memphis, and settled negro slaves on it, in the hope that they would work out their own liberty and that the Southern planters would be induced to follow her example. The experiment proved a failure, and, with health broken, she was ordered to Europe by her physician. On returning to America again, she became a member of Robert Owen’s colony at New Harmony in Indiana, and with the assistance of Robert Dale Owen conducted a socialistic journal. At this time she frequently appeared on the lecture platform in many parts of the country. During one of her numerous trips to Europe she was married in France to M. Phiquepal-D’Arusmont. She died at Cincinnati in 1852.

Though no fanatic, Frances D’Arusmont had several qualities of the visionary, courage and enthusiasm without prudence and judgment. It is greatly to her credit and honor, however, that she was among the first to realize the importance of the slavery question and to make an effort to settle it amicably. It is to be regretted that she did not devote her life solely to the solution of this momentous problem.

The selection here given from her “Views of Society and Manners in America,” follows the text of the first New York edition, 1821.

THE CONSTITUTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

What is most worthy of admiration in the history of America is not merely the spirit of liberty which has ever animated her people, but their perfect acquaintance with the science of government, which has ever saved that spirit from preying on itself. The sages who laid the foundation of her greatness possessed at once the pride of freemen and the knowledge of English freemen; in building the edifice, they knew how to lay the foundation; in preserving untouched the rights of each individual, they knew how to prevent his attacking those of his neighbor: they brought with them the experience of the best governed nation then existing; and, having felt in their own persons the errors inherent in that constitution, which had enlightened, but only partly protected them, they knew what to shun as well as what to imitate in the new models which they here cast, leisurely and sagely, in a new and remote world. Thus possessed from the beginning of free institutions, or else continually occupied in procuring or defending them, the Colonies were well prepared to assume the character of independent States. There was less of an experiment in this than their enemies supposed. Nothing, indeed, can explain the obstinacy of the English ministry at the commencement of the Revolutionary struggle but the supposition that they were wholly ignorant of the history of the people to whom they were opposed. May I be forgiven the observation, that the inquiries of ... have led me into the belief that some candid and well-informed English gentlemen of the present day have almost as little acquaintance with it as had Lord North.

Respecting the Revolution itself, the interest of its military history is such as to fix the attention of the most thoughtless readers; but in this, foreigners sometimes appear to imagine, was expended the whole virtue of America. That a country which could put forth so much energy, magnanimity, and wisdom, as appeared in that struggle, should suddenly lose a claim to all these qualities, would be no less surprising than humiliating. If we glance at the civil history of these republics since the era of their independence, do we find no traces of the same character? Were we to consider only the national institutions, the mild and impartial laws, the full establishment of the rights of conscience, the multiplication of schools and colleges to an extent unknown in any other country of the world, all the improvements in every branch of internal policy which have placed this people in their present state of peace and unrivalled prosperity, we must allow them to be not only wise to their interests, but alive to the pleas of humanity; but there are not wanting instances of a yet more liberal policy.

How seldom is it that history affords us the example of a voluntary sacrifice on the part of separate communities to further the common good! It appears to me that the short history of America furnishes us with more examples of this kind than that of any other nation, ancient or modern. Throughout the war of the Revolution, and for some years preceding it, the public feeling may be said to have been unusually excited. At such times, men, and societies of men, are equal to actions beyond the strength of their virtue at cooler moments. Passing on, therefore, to the peace of 1783, we find a number of independent republics gradually reconciling their separate and clashing interests, each yielding something to promote the advantage of all, and sinking the pride of individual sovereignty in that of the united whole. The remarks made by Ramsay on the adoption of the federal constitution are so apposite that I cannot resist quoting them:

“The adoption of this constitution was a triumph of virtue and good sense over the vices and follies of human nature; in some respects, the merit of it is greater than that of the Declaration of Independence. The worst of men can be urged to make a spirited resistance to invasion of their rights; but higher grades of virtue are requisite to induce freemen, in the possession of a limited sovereignty, voluntarily to surrender a portion of their natural liberties; to impose on themselves those restraints of good government which bridle the ferocity of man, compel him to respect the claims of others, and to submit his rights and his wrongs to be decided upon by the voices of his fellow citizens. The instances of nations which have vindicated their liberty by the sword are many; of those which have made a good use of their liberty when acquired are comparatively few.”

Nor did the liberality of these republics evince itself only in the adoption of the general government. We find some making voluntary concessions of vast territories, that they might be devoted to national purposes; others releasing part of their own people from existing engagements, and leaving them to consult their wishes and convenience by forming themselves into new communities.

Should we contrast this policy with that employed by other nations, we might hastily pronounce this people to be singularly free from the ordinary passions of humanity. But, no; they are only singularly enlightened in the art of government; they have learned that there is no strength without union, no union without good fellowship, and no good fellowship without fair dealing; and, having learned this, they are only singularly fortunate in being able to reduce their knowledge to practice.

FOOTNOTE:

Mr. Burke, who seems to have possessed a more thorough acquaintance with the institutions and character of the Colonists than any other British statesman, insisted much on “the form of their provincial legislative assemblies,” when tracing the consequences likely to result from the oppressive acts of parliament. “Their governments,” observed this orator, “are popular in a high degree; some are merely popular; in all, the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share of the people, in their ordinary government, never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance.” (Author’s note.)

FRANCIS LIEBER

In these latter days when the world has been inclined to wonder whether any good could come out of Prussia, it is interesting to recall that Francis Lieber, who came to the United States in 1827 in the vanguard of the German political refugees of the early nineteenth century, was born in Berlin, March 18, 1800. His life was one of intense activity, both physical and mental. He fought in the Prussian army at Ligny and at Waterloo, and was severely wounded in the attack on Namur. After the Napoleonic wars he studied in Berlin; and in 1819, because of his political ideas, he was imprisoned on the charge of plotting against the government. He was discharged without trial; but, being forbidden to stay at the Prussian universities, he took his degree at Jena in 1820. After taking part in the Greek Revolution of 1821 he went to Rome, where he became a tutor in the family of the famous historian, Niebuhr. On returning to Berlin he was rearrested and imprisoned, but released through the efforts of Niebuhr. Tired of this relentless persecution, he left his native land forever in 1825. Before embarking for the New World he was a teacher in London for a short time.

Lieber’s first literary undertaking after reaching the United States was the editing of the Encyclopædia Americana in Boston, 1827-32. For the next twenty years he was professor of political economy in South Carolina College, where his most important works were produced,--“A Manual of Political Ethics,” 1838; “Legal and Political Hermeneutics,” 1839; “Civil Liberty and Self-government,” 1852. In 1856 he was called to a similar professorship in Columbia College, New York. He was member of the French Institute and other learned societies in Europe and America.

The spirit of the man and his work is manifested in his favorite motto, Nullum jus sine officio, nullum officium sine jure (“No right without its duties, no duty without its rights”). It is not necessary to mention his numerous writings except the one of immediate interest here,--“The Stranger in America,” published in 1834, a series of letters written to a friend in Germany. In the selection that follows, the reader will be struck by the wisdom and foresight in pointing out the danger of segregation and the futility of German immigrants attempting to erect a German state within the United States.

A GERMAN IMMIGRANT POINTS OUT THE DANGERS OF SEGREGATION

The Germans, as I said, form a most valuable addition to our population, when mingled with the great predominant race inhabiting the northern part of this continent. Whenever colonists settle among a different nation, in such numbers and so closely together that they may live on among themselves, without intermixture with the original inhabitants, a variety of inconveniences will necessarily arise. Living in an isolated state, the current of civilization of the country in which they live does not reach them; and they are equally cut off from that of their mother country: mental stagnation is the consequence. They remain a foreign element, an ill-joined part of the great machinery of which they still form, and needs must form, a part. Sometimes, indeed, particular circumstances may alter the view of the case. When the French Protestant colonists were received into Prussia, it was perhaps judicious to allow them, for example in Berlin, to form for a time a community for themselves, to have their own jurisdiction, schools, and churches, because they were more perfect in many branches of industry than the people among whom they settled; and, had they been obliged to immerge forthwith, their skill, so desirable to those who received them, might have been lost.

At present, however, they too are immerged in the mass of the population. Besides, the inconvenience arising from their forming a separate community was never very great, since they were few in number, and belonged by their professions to the better educated classes. But take an example in the Hussites, who settled in Germany; remember the Bohemian village near Berlin, called Rixdorf, the inhabitants of which obstinately refused intermarrying with Germans, and many of whom, until very recently, continued to speak Bohemian only. Those, therefore, who lately proposed to form a whole German state in our west, ought to weigh well their project before they set about it, if ever it should become possible to put this scheme into practice, which I seriously doubt. “Ossification,” as the Germans call it, would be the unavoidable consequence. These colonists would be unable, though they might come by thousands and tens of thousands, to develop for themselves German literature, German language, German law, German science, German art; everything would remain stationary at the point where it was when they brought it over from the mother country, and within less than fifty years our colony would degenerate into an antiquated, ill-adapted element of our great national system, with which, sooner or later, it must assimilate. What a voluntary closing of the eyes to light would it be for a colony among people of the Anglican race, which, in point of politics, has left every other race far behind, to strive to isolate itself!

POLITICAL LIBERTY IN AMERICA

As a thousand things co-operated in ancient Greece to produce that unrivalled state of perfection in which we find the fine arts to have been there,--a happy constellation of the most fortunate stars,--so a thousand favorable circumstances concur in America to make it possible that a far greater amount of liberty can be introduced into all the concerns of her political society than ever was possible before with any other nation, or will be at any future period, yet also requiring its sacrifices, as the fine arts with the Greeks required theirs.

The influence of this nation has been considerable already; it will be much more so yet in ages to come; political ideas will be developed here, and have a decided effect on the whole European race, and, for aught I know, upon other races. But as the Grecian art has kindled the sense of the beautiful with many nations, but never could be equalled again (as a national affair), so it is possible that political notions, developed here and received by other nations, will have a sound influence only if in their new application they are modified to the given circumstances; for it is not in the power of any man or nation to create all those circumstances under the shade of which liberty reposes here. Politics is civil architecture, and a poor architect indeed is he who forgets three things in building: the place where the building is to be raised, the materials with which he has to build, and the object for which the structure is erected. If the materials are Jews of Palestine, and if the object of the fabric be to keep the people as separate from neighbors as possible, the architect would not obtain his end by a constitution similar to that of one of our new States.

It was necessary for the Americans, in order to make them fit to solve certain political problems, which, until their solution here, were considered chimerical (take as an instance the keeping of this immense country without a garrison), that they should descend from the English, should begin as persecuted colonists severed from the mother country, and yet loving it with all their heart and all their soul; to have a continent, vast and fertile, and possessing those means of internal communication which gave to Europe the great superiority over Asia and Africa; to be at such a distance from Europe that she should appear as a map; to be mostly Protestants, and to settle in colonies with different charters, so that, when royal authority was put down, they were as so many independent States, and yet to be all of one metal, so that they never ceased morally to form one nation, nor to feel as such.

You may say, “Strange, that an abuse of liberty, as this apparent or real party strife in election contests actually is, should lead you to the assertion that no nation is fitter for a government of law.” Yet I do repeat it. How would it be with other nations? It would be after an election of this kind that the real trouble would only begin; we see an instance in South America. Here, on the other hand, as soon as the election is over, the contest is settled, and the citizen obeys the law. “Keep to the right, as the law directs,” you will often find on sign-boards on bridges in this country. It expresses the authority which the law here possesses. I doubt very much whether the Romans, noted for their obedience to the law, held it in higher respect than the Americans.

CARL SCHURZ

Carl Schurz, probably the most eminent of German immigrants to the United States, was born in Rhenish Prussia, in 1829. He came to America in 1852 and settled in Missouri, from which State he was sent to Congress as Senator. He served as a general in the Union Army during the Civil War. In 1875 he removed to New York City and was editor of The Evening Post from 1881 to 1884. He was active in support of civil service reform, and as a political thinker commanded high respect. His most notable works are his “Speeches,” his “Reminiscences,” a “Life of Henry Clay,” and “Abraham Lincoln: an Essay.” The last was originally published in The Atlantic Monthly as a review of “Abraham Lincoln: A History,” by Nicolay and Hay. As a tribute to the life and work of Lincoln it is worthy to stand beside the “Commemoration Ode” of Lowell and the memorial poems of Whitman. Both from his natural sympathies and endowments and because of his participation in the events of the time, Schurz was eminently qualified to write on the subject. With fine enthusiasm and yet avoiding extravagant eulogy, he never loses sight of the essentially human characteristics of the great President. The following passage comprises the closing words of the essay. The selections on “True Americanism” are taken from an address delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, on the 18th of April, 1859.

AN IMMIGRANT’S TRIBUTE TO LINCOLN