« PreviousContinue »
the iron quality which made our forefathers and predecessors fit to do the deeds they did. It will of necessity find a different expression now, but the quality itself remains just as necessary as ever. Surely you men of the West, you men who with stout heart, cool head, and ready hand have wrought out your own success and built up these great new commonwealths, surely you need no reminder of the fact that if either man or nation wishes to play a great part in the world there must be no dallying with the life of lazy ease. In the abounding energy and intensity of existence in our mighty democratic republic there is small space indeed for the idler, for the luxury-loving man who prizes ease more than hard, triumph-crowned effort.
"We hold work not as a curse but as a blessing, and we regard the idler with scornful pity. It would be in the highest degree undesirable that we should all work in the same way or at the same things, and for the sake of the real greatness of the nation we should in the fullest and most cordial way recognize the fact that some of the most needed work must, from its very nature, be unremunerative in a material sense. Each man must choose so far as the conditions allow him the path to which he is bidden by his own peculiar powers and inclinations. But if he is a man he must in some way or shape do a man's work. If, after making all the effort that his strength of body and of mind permits, he yet honorably fails, why, he is still entitled to a certain share of respect because he has made the effort. But if he does not make the effort, or if he makes it half-heartedly and recoils from the labor, the risk, or the irksome monotony of his task, why, he has forfeited all right to our respect, and has shown himself a mere cumberer on the earth. It is not given to us all to succeed, but it is given to us all to strive manfully to deserve success.
"We need then the iron qualities that must go with true manhood. We need the positive virtues of resolution, of courage, of indomitable will, of power to do without shrinking the rough work that must always be done, and to persevere through the long days of slow progress or of seeming failure which always come before any final triumph, no matter how brilliant. But we need more than these qualities. This country cannot afford to have its sons less than men; but neither can it afford to have them other than good men. If courage and strength and intellect are unaccompanied by the moral purpose, the moral sense, they become merely forms of expression for unscrupulous force and unscrupulous cunning. If the strong man has not in him the lift toward lofty things his strength makes him only a curse to himself and to his neighbor. All this is true in private life, and it is no less true in public life. If Washington and Lincoln had not had in them the whipcord fiber of moral and mental strength, the soul that steels itself to endure disaster unshaken and with grim resolve to wrest victory from defeat, then the one could not have founded, nor the other preserved, our mighty federal Union. The least
touch of flabbiness, of unhealthy softness, in either would have meant ruin for this nation, and therefore the downfall of the proudest hope of mankind. But no less is it true that had either been influenced by self-seeking ambition, by callous disregard of others, by contempt for the moral law, they would have dashed us down into the black gulf of failure. Woe to all of us if ever as a people we grow to condone evil because it is successful. We can no more afford to lose social and civic decency and honesty than we can afford to lose the qualities of courage and strength. It is the merest truism to say that the nation rests upon the individual, upon the family-upon individual manliness and womanliness, using the words in their widest and fullest meaning.
“To be a good husband or good wife, a good neighbor and friend, to be hard-working and upright in business and social relations, to bring up many healthy children-to be and to do all this is to lay the foundations of good citizenship as they must be laid. But we cannot stop even with this. Each of us has not only his duty to himself, his family, and his neighbors, but his duty to the State and to the nation. We are in honor bound each to strive according to his or her strength to bring ever nearer the day when justice and wisdom shall obtain in public life as in private life. We cannot retain the full measure of our self-respect if we cannot retain pride in our citizenship. For the sake not only of ourselves but of our children and our children's children we must see that this nation stands for strength and honesty both at home and abroad. In our internal policy we cannot afford to rest satisfied until all that the Government can do has been done to secure fair dealing and equal justice as between man and man. In the great part which hereafter, whether we will or not, we must play in the world at large, let us see to it that we neither do wrong nor shrink from doing right because the right is difficult; that on the one hand we inflict no injury, and that on the other we have a due regard for the honor and the interest of our mighty nation; and that we keep unsullied the renown of the flag which beyond all others of the present time or of the ages of the past stands for confident faith in the future welfare and greatness of mankind.”
Much has been well and handsomely said of the literary life and works, and distinction in historical writing of the President of the United States. It is saying too much, however, to assert as has been done frequently Roosevelt is the only President who could be described as a literary man. The Adamses and the Harrisons were of literary accomplishments. The elder Harrison contributed to the schoolbooks and Benjamin Harrison leaves two volumes of good work, besides his speeches and his reports of the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Jefferson and Madison were distinctly literary men, and Abraham Lincoln's inaugural addresses and Gettysburg oration, are like grand old Hebrew poems.
The Memoirs of Grant are one of his monuments. They have the merit of masterly simplicity. Theodore Roosevelt is the first President who was a producer of books in the days of his youth. It is true that outside journalism, few literary men of our country have been important factors in public affairs.
In Germany, the great Central Power of Europe, the sword is greater than the pen in the construction and control of the system and machinery of the Government. The men, great in science and literature, as in art, live remote from the persons and policies of authority. Bismarck may be recognized as a lofty exception, for his was a towering intellect, and it was his nature to subordinate all with whom he came in contact, until the heir to the throne, which he had made imperial, accepted the imperious instructor too literally, and the architect of the Empire found he had builded stronger, and wiser, than he knew. It is within the recollection of men, students of history, for a generation that two men, whose earliest and greatest distinctions were in literature, were the masters of their countries-England and France. They were Disraeli and Thiers. Behind the latter was Lamertine, and the former, Gladstone. Disraeli, the romance writer, was a great practical politician. The literary men of France have been important in the life of the country, and the influence of literature, not chiefly journalistic, but more serious undertakings of composition, has largely persuaded the French people in both wisdom and folly. Madame de Stael and George Sand have had political effect, that was distinct from the element of emotion in womanhood. Eugene Sue, the novelist, wrote under the impression he was a politician as well as a novelist, and had social tendencies. In our country, Samuel L. Clemens has occasionally figured as the benevolent father of radical opinions; and William D. Howells, one of the most amiable and gentle of men, has a political imagination whose pleasing purposes are worthy of all praise. Napoleon III. whose imperial error was that he rubbed the fur of the French Tiger the wrong way, at the zenith of his power undertook to write the life of Julius Caesar, and opened it saying, "the truths of history are almost as sacred as those of religion.”
The literary men of England have long been prone to take themselves seriously in politics, but the people have hardly seconded them in that disposition. Thomas Carlyle was not thought of either as a winner of the Derby or the Premier of the Empire; and Roseberry, the author of the last phases of Napoleon and winner of the Derby, is still largely in the confidence of the British public. John Morley was writing and publishing in monthly parts, the life of Oliver Cromwell, at the time Theodore Roosevelt was doing the same thing. Bulwer, the novelist, was a decoration of Parliament, but did not play the part of an imposing character. Tennyson's war songs made a commotion in the land exceeding that produced by Rudyard Kipling. Sir Walter
Scott was devoted to the Prince of Wales of his day, and wrote a huge life of Napoleon, to complete his downfall, but was neither statesman nor historian; and the greatest poet of England just now is the terror of those who "loaf around the throne,” to borrow the language of another poet who was radical once, but has mellowed and is broader and kindlier, and the foremost of our diplomats because he had rare cultivation and training and the capability. Bryant, Lowell and Whittier were our poets and fiery politicians, but never sailed on "Oh ship of state !"
The literary centre of the country has, under the leadership of General Wallace, followed the flag and centre of population into the State of Indiana, but only Roosevelt could have cast a charm with his pen upon the Bad Lands of the Missouri, so that over the sources of the American Nile, the spell of enchantment lingers.
HIS RISE IN LEADERSHIP.
Led to and from Cuba-Paints Enchanting Picture of the Island–From Santiago to
Albany-Vice-Presidential Notification of Nomination-Rough Rider Games at Oklahoma-Picnic with Bryan at Chicago.
SSISTANT Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, was in favor
of war with Spain, that she might no more have a colonial system to
abuse in the American continent; but he was not to be classed with the war whoopers in Congress, who believed the Key West Cuban dispatches, and had Gomez thundering forever at the gates of Havana, when he was five hundred miles away.
Spain was the type of a poor but proud country, and Cuba was her place for favorites; and the Philippines were in the same service, but second choice, and so far off we were not interfered with by the wars of insurrection there; and yet, the thousand islands between the South Pacific and the Sea of China, were of the ocean into which our Western progress had carried us. We had already Alaska and the Aleutian Archipelago, and were soon to complete our title to the Hawaiian group—the Paradise of the Pacific. One of the plagues affecting us through the misgovernment of Cuba, was the yellow fever, the direct result of unsanitary conditions and incompetent, greedy rulers. There had been four hundred years of Captain Generals, with but little variation. Spain had lost all her American continental possessions, but their independence was slow to develop capacity for self-government. The logic of history, the drift of the current of progress, the Westward march of the Empires that are imperial because great and free—the "manifest destiny" that was written in the land and reflected on the seas, told that presently the islands still held by Spain would remove, or have removed, the Spanish yoke.
There were politicians having association with our affairs, who were in a fury to lead in war cries, that they might be a conspicuity in the war party. The President of the United States was a soldier and a peace man, and had no ambition to be a war President. He believed there was danger of war, and hoped, until the massacre of the Maine, to keep peace. Then it was his first duty to restrain those who were hasty and headlong to come to blows with