The heretics of the Middle Period were not cowardly, but they were intellectually irresponsible, undisciplined, and inexperienced. Sharing, as they did, most of the deeper illusions of their time, they did not vindicate their own individual intellectual independence, and they contributed little or nothing to American national intellectual independence. With the exception of a few of the men of letters who had inherited a formative local tradition, their own personal careers were examples not of gradual individual fulfillment, but at best of repetition and at worst of degeneracy. Like the most brilliant contemporary Whig politicians, such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, their intellectual individuality was gradually cheapened by the manner in which it was expressed; and it is this fact which makes the case of Lincoln, both as a politician and a thinker, so unique and so extraordinary. The one public man of this period who did impose upon himself a patient and a severe intellectual and moral discipline, who really did seek the excellent use of his own proper tools, is the man who preeminently attained national intellectual and moral stature. The difference in social value between Lincoln and, say, William Lloyd Garrison can be measured by the difference in moral and intellectual discipline to which each of these men submitted. Lincoln sedulously turned to account every intellectual and moral opportunity which his life afforded. Garrison's impatient temper and unbalanced mind made him the enthusiastic advocate of a few distorted and limited ideas. The consequence was that Garrison, although apparently an arch-heretic, was in reality the victim of the sterile American convention which makes willful enthusiasm, energy, and good intentions a sufficient substitute for necessary individual and collective training. Lincoln, on the other hand, was in his whole moral and intellectual make-up a living protest against the aggressive, irresponsible, and merely practical Americanism of his day; while at the same time in the greatness of his love and understanding he never allowed his distinction to divide him from his fellow-countrymen. His was the unconscious and constructive heresy which looked in the direction of national intellectual independence and national moral union and good faith.

IV

MEANS OF INDIVIDUAL EMANCIPATION

We are now in a position to define more clearly just how the American individual can assert his independence, and how in asserting his independence he can contribute to American national fulfillment. He cannot make any effective advance towards national fulfillment merely by educating himself and his fellow-countrymen as individuals to a higher intellectual and moral level, because an essential condition of really edifying individual education is the gradual process of collective education by means of collective action and formative collective discipline. On the other hand, this task of collective education is far from being complete in itself. It necessarily makes far greater demands upon the individual than does a system of comparative collective irresponsibility. It implies the selection of peculiarly competent, energetic, and responsible individuals to perform the peculiarly difficult and exacting parts in a socially constructive drama; and it implies, as a necessary condition of such leadership, a progressively higher standard of individual training and achievement, unofficial as well as official, throughout the whole community. The process of educating men of moral and intellectual stature sufficient for the performance of important constructive work cannot be disentangled from the process of national fulfillment by means of intelligent collective action. American nationality will never be fulfilled except under the leadership of such men; and the American nation will never obtain the necessary leadership unless it seeks seriously the redemption of its national responsibility.

Such being the situation in general, how can the duty and the opportunity of the individual at the present time best be defined? Is he obliged to sit down and wait until the edifying, economic, political, and social transformation has taken place? Or can he by his own immediate behavior do something effectual both to obtain individual emancipation and to accelerate the desirable process of social reconstruction? This question has already been partially answered by the better American individual; and it is, I believe, being answered in the right way. The means which he is taking to reach a more desirable condition of individual independence, and inferentially to add a little something to the process of national fulfillment, consist primarily and chiefly in a thoroughly zealous and competent performance of his own particular job; and in taking this means of emancipation and fulfillment he is both building better and destroying better than he knows.

The last generation of Americans has taken a better method of asserting their individual independence than that practiced by the heretics of the Middle Period. Those who were able to gain leadership in business and politics sought to justify their success by building up elaborate industrial and political organizations which gave themselves and their successors peculiar individual opportunities. On the other hand, the men of more specifically intellectual interests tacitly abandoned the Newer-Worldliness of their predecessors and began unconsciously but intelligently to seek the attainment of some excellence in the performance of their own special work. In almost every case they discovered that the first step in the acquisition of the better standards of achievement was to go abroad. If their interests were scholarly or scientific, they were likely to matriculate at one of the German universities for the sake of studying under some eminent specialist. If they were painters, sculptors, or architects, they flocked to Paris, as the best available source of technical instruction in the arts. Wherever the better schools were supposed to be, there the American pupils gathered; and the consequence was during the last quarter of the nineteenth century a steady and considerable improvement in the standard of special work and the American schools of special discipline. In this way there was domesticated a necessary condition and vehicle of the liberation and assertion of American individuality.

A similar transformation has been taking place in the technical aspects of American industry. In this field the individual has not been obliged to make his own opportunities to the same extent as in business, politics, and the arts. The opportunities were made for him by the industrial development of the country. Efficient special work soon became absolutely necessary in the various branches of manufacture, in mining, and in the business of transportation; and in the beginning it was frequently necessary to import from abroad expert specialists. The technical schools of the country were wholly inadequate to supply the demand either for the quantity or the quality of special work needed. When, for instance, the construction of railroads first began, the only good engineering school in the country was West Point, and the consequence was that many army officers became railroad engineers. But little by little the amount and the standard of technical instruction improved; while at the same time the greater industrial organizations themselves trained their younger employees with ever increasing efficiency. Of late years even farming has become an occupation in which special knowledge is supposed to have certain advantages. In every kind of practical work specialization, founded on a more or less arduous course of preparation, is coming to prevail; and in this way individuals, possessing the advantages of the necessary gifts and discipline, are obtaining definite and stimulating opportunities for personal efficiency and independence.

It would be a grave mistake to conclude, however, that the battle is already won—that the individual has already obtained in any department of practical or intellectual work sufficient personal independence or sufficiently edifying opportunities. The comparatively zealous and competent individual performer does not, of course, feel so much of an alien in his social surroundings as he did a generation or two ago. He can usually obtain a certain independence of position, a certain amount of intelligent and formative appreciation, and a sufficiently substantial measure of reward. But he has still much to contend against in his social, economic, and intellectual environment. His independence is precarious. In some cases it is won with too little effort. In other cases it can be maintained only at too great a cost. His rewards, if substantial, can be obtained as readily by sacrificing the integrity of his work as by remaining faithful thereto. The society in which he lives, and which gives him his encouragement and support, has the limitations of a clique. Its encouragement is too conscious; its support too willful. Beyond a certain point its encouragement becomes indeed relaxing rather than stimulating, and the aspiring individual is placed in the situation of having most to fear from the inhabitants of his own household. His intellectual and moral environment is lukewarm. He is encouraged to be an individual, but not too much of an individual. He is encouraged to do good work, but not to do always and uncompromisingly his best work. He is trusted, but he is not trusted enough. He believes in himself, but he does not believe as much in himself and in his mission as his own highest achievement demands. He is not sufficiently empowered by the idea that just in so far as he does his best work, and only his best work, he is contributing most to national as well as personal fulfillment.

What the better American individual particularly needs, then, is a completer faith in his own individual purpose and power—a clearer understanding of his own individual opportunities. He needs to do what he has been doing, only more so, and with the conviction that thereby he is becoming not less but more of an American. His patriotism, instead of being something apart from his special work, should be absolutely identified therewith, because no matter how much the eminence of his personal achievement may temporarily divide him from his fellow-countrymen, he is, by attaining to such an eminence, helping in the most effectual possible way to build the only fitting habitation for a sincere democracy. He is to make his contribution to individual improvement primarily by making himself more of an individual. The individual as well as the nation must be educated and "uplifted" chiefly by what the individual can do for himself. Education, like charity, should begin at home.

An individual can, then, best serve the cause of American individuality by effectually accomplishing his own individual emancipation—that is, by doing his own special work with ability, energy, disinterestedness, and excellence. The scope of the individual's opportunities at any one time will depend largely upon society, but whatever they amount to, the individual has no excuse for not making the most of them. Before he can be of any service to his fellows, he must mold himself into the condition and habit of being a good instrument. On this point there can be no compromise. Every American who has the opportunity of doing faithful and fearless work, and who proves faithless to it, belongs to the perfect type of the individual anti-democrat. By cheapening his own personality he has cheapened the one constituent of the national life over which he can exercise most effectual control; and thereafter, no matter how superficially patriotic and well-intentioned he may be, his words and his actions are tainted and are in some measure corrupting in their social effect.

A question will, however, immediately arise as to the nature of this desirable individual excellence. It is all very well to say that a man should do his work competently, faithfully, and fearlessly, but how are we to define the standard of excellence? When a man is seeking to do his best, how shall he go about it? Success in any one of these individual pursuits demands that the individual make some sort of a personal impression. He must seek according to the nature of the occupation a more or less numerous popular following. The excellence of a painter's work does not count unless he can find at least a small group of patrons who will admire and buy it. The most competent architect can do nothing for himself or for other people unless he attracts clients who will build his paper houses. The playwright needs even a larger following. If his plays are to be produced, he must manage to amuse and to interest thousands of people. And the politician most of all depends upon a numerous and faithful body of admirers. Of what avail would his independence and competence be in case there were nobody to accept his leadership? It is not enough, consequently, to assert that the individual must emancipate himself by means of excellent and disinterested work. His emancipation has no meaning, his career as an individual no power, except with the support of a larger or smaller following. Admitting the desirability of excellent work, what kind of workmanlike excellence will make the individual not merely independent and incorruptible, but powerful? In what way and to what end shall he use the instrument, which he is to forge and temper, for his own individual benefit and hence for that of society?

These questions involve a real difficulty, and before we are through they must assuredly be answered; but they are raised at the present stage of the discussion for the purpose of explicitly putting them aside rather than for the purpose of answering them. The individual instruments must assuredly be forged and tempered to some good use, but before we discuss their employment let us be certain of the instruments themselves. Whatever that employment may be and however much of a following its attainment may demand, the instrument must at any rate be thoroughly well made, and in the beginning it is necessary to insist upon merely instrumental excellence, because the American habit and tradition is to estimate excellence almost entirely by results. If the individual will only obtain his following, there need be no close scrutiny as to his methods. The admirable architect is he who designs an admirably large number of buildings. The admirable playwright is he who by whatever means makes the hearts of his numerous audiences palpitate. The admirable politician is he who succeeds somehow or anyhow in gaining the largest area of popular confidence. This tradition is the most insidious enemy of American individual independence and fulfillment. Instead of declaring, as most Americans do, that a man may, if he can, do good work, but that he must create a following, we should declare that a man may, if he can, obtain a following, but that he must do good work. When he has done good work, he may not have done all that is required of him; but if he fails to do good work, nothing else counts. The individual democrat who has had the chance and who has failed in that essential respect is an individual sham, no matter how much of a shadow his figure casts upon the social landscape.

The good work which for his own benefit the individual is required to do, means primarily technically competent work. The man who has thoroughly mastered the knowledge and the craft essential to his own special occupation is by way of being the well-forged and well-tempered instrument. Little by little there have been developed in relation to all the liberal arts and occupations certain tested and approved technical methods. The individual who proposes to occupy himself with any one of these arts must first master the foundation of knowledge, of formal traditions, and of manual practice upon which the superstructure is based. The danger that a part of this fund of technical knowledge and practice may at any particular time be superannuated must be admitted; but the validity of the general rule is not affected thereby. The most useful and effective dissenters are those who were in the beginning children of the Faith. The individual who is too weak to assert himself with the help of an established technical tradition is assuredly too weak to assert himself without it. The authoritative technical tradition associated with any one of the arts of civilization is merely the net result of the accumulated experience of mankind in a given region. That experience may or may not have been exhaustive or adequately defined; but in any event its mastery by the individual is merely a matter of personal and social economy. It helps to prevent the individual from identifying his whole personal career with unnecessary mistakes. It provides him with the most natural and serviceable vehicle for self-expression. It supplies him with a language which reduces to the lowest possible terms the inevitable chances of misunderstanding. It is society's nearest approach to an authentic standard in relation to the liberal arts and occupations; and just so far as it is authentic society is justified in imposing it on the individual.

The perfect type of authoritative technical methods are those which prevail among scientific men in respect to scientific work. No scientist as such has anything to gain by the use of inferior methods or by the production of inferior work. There is only one standard for all scientific investigators—the highest standard; and so far as a man falls below that standard his inferiority is immediately reflected in his reputation. Some scientists make, of course, small contributions to the increase of knowledge, and some make comparatively large contributions; but just in so far as a man makes any contribution at all, it is a real contribution, and nothing makes it real but the fact that it is recognized. In the Hall of Science exhibitors do not get their work hung upon the line because it tickles the public taste, or because it is "uplifting," or because the jury is kindly and wishes to give the exhibitor a chance to earn a little second-rate reputation. The same standard is applied to everybody, and the jury is incorruptible. The exhibit is nothing if not true, or by way of becoming or being recognized as true.

A technical standard in any one of the liberal or practical arts cannot be applied as rigorously as can the standard of scientific truth, because the standard itself is not so authentic. In all these arts many differences of opinion exist among masters as to the methods and forms which should be authoritative; and in so far as such is the case, the individual must be allowed to make many apparently arbitrary personal choices. The fact that a man has such choices to make is the circumstance which most clearly distinguishes the practice of an art from that of a science, but this circumstance, instead of being an excuse for technical irresponsibility or mere eclecticism, should, on the contrary, stimulate the individual more completely to justify his choice. In his work he is fighting the battle not merely of his own personal career, but of a method, of a style, of an idea, or of an ideal. The practice of the several arts need not suffer from diversity of standard, provided the several separate standards are themselves incorruptible. In all the arts—and by the arts I mean all disinterested and liberal practical occupations—the difficulty is not that sufficiently authoritative standards do not exist, but that they are not applied. The standard which is applied is merely that of the good-enough. The juries are either too kindly or too lax or too much corrupted by the nature of their own work. They are prevented from being incorruptible about the work of other people by a sub-conscious apprehension of the fate of their own performances—in case similar standards were applied to themselves. Just in so far as the second-rate performer is allowed to acquire any standing, he inevitably enters into a conspiracy with his fellows to discourage exhibitions of genuine and considerable excellence, and, of course, to a certain extent he succeeds. By the waste which he encourages of good human appreciation, by the confusion which he introduces into the popular critical standards, he helps to effect a popular discrimination against any genuine superiority of achievement.

Individual independence and fulfillment is conditioned on the technical excellence of the individual's work, because the most authentic standard is for the time being constituted by excellence of this kind. An authentic standard must be based either upon acquired knowledge or an accepted ideal. Americans have no popularly accepted ideals which are anything but an embarrassment to the aspiring individual. In the course of time some such ideals may be domesticated—in which case the conditions of individual excellence would be changed; but we are dealing with the present and not with the future. Under current conditions the only authentic standard must be based, not upon the social influence of the work, but upon its quality; and a standard of this kind, while it falls short of being complete, must always persist as one indispensable condition of final excellence. The whole body of acquired technical experience and practice has precisely the same authority as any other body of knowledge. The respect it demands is similar to the respect demanded by science in all its forms. In this particular case the science is neither complete nor entirely trustworthy, but it is sufficiently complete and trustworthy for the individual's purpose, and can be ignored only at the price of waste, misunderstanding, and partial inefficiency and sterility.

A standard of uncompromising technical excellence contains, however, for the purpose of this argument, a larger meaning than that which is usually attached to the phrase. A technically competent performance is ordinarily supposed to mean one which displays a high degree of manual dexterity; and a man who has acquired such a degree of dexterity is also supposed to be the victim of his own mastery. No doubt such is frequently the case; but in the present meaning the thoroughly competent individual workman becomes necessarily very much more of an individual than any man can be who is merely the creature of his own technical facility and preoccupation. I have used the word art not in the sense merely of fine art, but in the sense of all liberal and disinterested practical work; and the excellent performance of that work demands certain qualifications which are common to all the arts as well as peculiar to the methods and materials of certain particular arts and crafts. These qualifications are both moral and intellectual. They require that no one shall be admitted to the ranks of thoroughly competent performers until he is morally and intellectually, as well as scientifically and manually, equipped for excellent work, and these appropriate moral and intellectual standards should be applied as incorruptibly as those born of specific technical practices.

A craftsman whose merits do not go beyond technical facility is probably deficient in both the intellectual and moral qualities essential to good work. The rule cannot be rigorously applied, because the boundaries between high technical proficiency and some very special examples of genuine mastery are often very indistinct. Still, the majority of craftsmen who are nothing more than, manually dexterous are rarely either sincere or disinterested in their personal attitude towards their occupation. They have not made themselves the sort of moral instrument which is capable of eminent achievement, and whenever unmistakable examples of such a lack of sincerity and conviction are distinguished, they should in the interest of a complete standard of special excellence meet with the same reprobation as would manual incompetence. It must not be inferred, however, that the standard of moral judgment applied to the individual in the performance of his particular work is identical with a comprehensive standard of moral practice. A man may be an acceptable individual instrument in the service of certain of the arts, even though he be in some other respects a tolerably objectionable person. A single-minded and disinterested attempt to obtain mastery of any particular occupation may in specific instances force a man to neglect certain admirable and in other relations essential qualities. He may be a faithless husband, a treacherous friend, a sturdy liar, or a professional bankrupt, without necessarily interfering with the excellent performance of his special job. A man who breaks a road to individual distinction by such questionable means may always be tainted; but he is a better public servant than would be some comparatively impeccable nonentity. It all depends on the nature and the requirements of the particular task, and the extent to which a man has really made sacrifices in order to accomplish it. There are many special jobs which absolutely demand scrupulous veracity, loyalty in a man's personal relations, or financial integrity. The politician who ruins his career in climbing down a waterspout, or the engineer who prevents his employers from trusting his judgment and conscience in money matters, cannot plead in extenuation any other sort of instrumental excellence. They have deserved to fail, because they have trifled with their job; and it may be added that serious moral delinquencies are usually grave hindrances to a man's individual efficiency.

From the intellectual point of view also technical competence means something more than manual proficiency. Just as the master must possess those moral qualities essential to the integrity of his work, so he must possess the corresponding intellectual qualities. All the liberal arts require, as a condition of mastery, a certain specific and considerable power of intelligence; and this power of intelligence is to be sharply distinguished from all-round intellectual ability. From our present point of view its only necessary application concerns the problems of a man's special occupation. Every special performer needs the power of criticising the quality and the subject-matter of his own work. Unless he has great gifts or happens to be brought up and trained under peculiarly propitious conditions, his first attempts to practice his art will necessarily be experimental. He will be sure to commit many mistakes, not merely in the choice of alternative methods and the selection of his subject-matter, but in the extent to which he personally can approve or disapprove of his own achievements. The thoroughly competent performer must at least possess the intellectual power of profiting from this experience. A candid consideration of his own experiments must guide him in the selection of the better methods, in the discrimination of the more appropriate subject-matter, in the avoidance of his own peculiar failings, and in the cultivation of his own peculiar strength. The technical career of the master is up to a certain point always a matter of growth. The technical career of the second-rate man is always a matter of degeneration or at best of repetition. The former brings with it its own salient and special form of enlightenment based upon the intellectual power to criticise his own experience and the moral power to act on his own acquired insight. To this extent he becomes more of a man by the very process of becoming more of a master.

The intellectual power required to criticise one's own experience with a formative result will of course vary considerably in different occupations. Technical mastery of the occupation of playwriting, criticism, or statesmanship, will require more specifically intellectual qualities than will be demanded by the competent musician or painter. But no matter how much intelligence may be needed, the way in which it should be used remains the same. Mere industry, aspiration, or a fluid run of ideas make as meager an equipment for a politician, a philanthropist, or a critic as they would for an architect; and absolutely the most dangerous mistake which an individual can make is that of confusing admirable intentions expressed in some inferior manner with genuine excellence of achievement. If such men succeed, they are corrupting in their influence. If they fail, they learn nothing from their failure, because they are always charging up to the public, instead of to themselves, the responsibility for their inferiority.

The conclusion is that at the present time an individual American's intentions and opinions are of less importance than his power of giving them excellent and efficient expression. What the individual can do is to make himself a better instrument for the practice of some serviceable art; and by so doing he can scarcely avoid becoming also a better instrument for the fulfillment of the American national Promise. To be sure, the American national Promise demands for its fulfillment something more than efficient and excellent individual instruments. It demands, or will eventually demand, that these individuals shall love and wish to serve their fellow-countrymen, and it will demand specifically that in the service of their fellow-countrymen, they shall reorganize their country's economic, political, and social institutions and ideas. Just how the making of competent individual instruments will of its own force assist the process of national reconstruction, we shall consider presently; but the first truth to drive home is that all political and social reorganization is a delusion, unless certain individuals, capable of edifying practical leadership, have been disciplined and trained; and such individuals must always and in some measure be a product of self-discipline. While not only admitting but proclaiming that the processes of individual and social improvement are mutually dependent, it is equally true that the initiative cannot be left to collective action. The individual must begin and carry as far as he can the work of his own emancipation; and for the present he has an excuse for being tolerably unscrupulous in so doing. By the successful assertion of his own claim to individual distinction and eminence, he is doing more to revolutionize and reconstruct the American democracy than can a regiment of professional revolutionists and reformers.

Professional socialists may cherish the notion that their battle is won as soon as they can secure a permanent popular majority in favor of a socialistic policy; but the constructive national democrat cannot logically accept such a comfortable illusion. The action of a majority composed of the ordinary type of convinced socialists could and would in a few years do more to make socialism impossible than could be accomplished by the best and most prolonged efforts of a majority of malignant anti-socialists. The first French republicans made by their behavior another republic out of the question in France for almost sixty years; and the second republican majority did not do so very much better. When the republic came in France it was founded by men who were not theoretical democrats, but who understood that a republic was for the time being the kind of government best adapted to the national French interest. These theoretical monarchists, but practical republicans, were for the most part more able, more patriotic, and higher-minded men than the convinced republicans; and in all probability a third republic, started without their cooeperation, would also have ended in a dictatorship. Any substantial advance toward social reorganization will in the same way be forced by considerations of public welfare on a majority of theoretical anti-socialists, because it is among this class that the most competent and best disciplined individuals are usually to be found. The intellectual and moral ability required, not merely to conceive, but to realize a policy of social reorganization, is far higher than the ability to carry on an ordinary democratic government. When such a standard of individual competence has been attained by a sufficient number of individuals and is applied to economic and social questions, some attempt at social reorganization is bound to be the result,—assuming, of course, the constructive relation already admitted between democracy and the social problem.

The strength and the weakness of the existing economic and social system consist, as we have observed, in the fact that it is based upon the realities of contemporary human nature. It is the issue of a time-honored tradition, an intense personal interest, and a method of life so habitual that it has become almost instinctive. It cannot be successfully attacked by any body of hostile opinion, unless such a body of opinion is based upon a more salient individual and social interest and a more intense and vital method of life. The only alternative interest capable of putting up a sufficiently vigorous attack and pushing home an occasional victory is the interest of the individual in his own personal independence and fulfillment—an interest which, as we have seen, can only issue from integrity and excellence of individual achievement. An interest of this kind is bound in its social influence to make for social reorganization, because such reorganization is in some measure a condition and accompaniment of its own self-expression; and the strength of its position and the superiority of its weapons are so decisive that they should gradually force the existing system to give way. The defenses of that system have vulnerable points; and its defenders are disunited except in one respect. They would be able to repel any attack delivered along their whole line; but their binding interest is selfish and tends under certain conditions to divide them one from another without bestowing on the divided individuals the energy of independence and self-possession. Their position can be attacked at its weaker points, not only without meeting with combined resistance, but even with the assistance of some of their theoretical allies. Many convinced supporters of the existing order are men of superior merit, who are really fighting against their own better individual interests; and they need only to taste the exhilaration of freedom in order better to understand its necessary social and economical conditions. Others, although men of inferior achievement, are patriotic and well-intentioned in feeling; and they may little by little be brought to believe that patriotism in a democracy demands the sacrifice of selfish interests and the regeneration of individual rights. Men of this stamp can be made willing prisoners by able and aggressive leaders whose achievements have given them personal authority and whose practical programme is based upon a sound knowledge of the necessary limits of immediate national action. The disinterested and competent individual is formed for constructive leadership, just as the less competent and independent, but well-intentioned, individual is formed more or less faithfully to follow on behind. Such leadership, in a country whose traditions and ideals are sincerely democratic, can scarcely go astray.

V

CONSTRUCTIVE INDIVIDUALISM

The preceding section was concluded with a statement, which the majority of its readers will find extremely questionable and which assuredly demands some further explanation. Suppose it to be admitted that individual Americans do seek the increase of their individuality by competent and disinterested special work. In what way will such work and the sort of individuality thereby developed exercise a decisive influence on behalf of social amelioration? We have already expressly denied that a desire to succor their fellow-countrymen or an ideal of social reorganization is at the present time a necessary ingredient in the make-up of these formative individuals. Their individual excellence has been defined exclusively in terms of high but special technical competence; and the manner in which these varied and frequently antagonistic individual performers are to cooeperate towards socially constructive results must still remain a little hazy. How are these eminent specialists, each of whom is admittedly pursuing unscrupulously his own special purpose, to be made serviceable in a coherent national democratic organization? How, indeed, are these specialists to get at the public whom they are supposed to lead? Many very competent contemporary Americans might claim that the real difficulty in relation to the social influence of the expert specialist has been sedulously evaded. The admirably competent individual cannot exercise any constructive social influence, unless he becomes popular; and the current American standards being what they are, how can an individual become popular without more or less insidious and baleful compromises? The gulf between individual excellence and effective popular influence still remains to be bridged; and until it is bridged, an essential stage is lacking in the transition from an individually formative result to one that is also socially formative.

Undoubtedly, a gulf does exist in the country between individual excellence and effective popular influence. Many excellent specialists exercise a very small amount of influence, and many individuals who exercise apparently a great deal of influence are conspicuously lacking in any kind of excellence. The responsibility for this condition is usually fastened upon the Philistine American public, which refuses to recognize genuine eminence and which showers rewards upon any second-rate performer who tickles its tastes and prejudices. But it is at least worth inquiring whether the responsibility should not be fastened, not upon the followers, but upon the supposed leaders. The American people are what the circumstances, the traditional leadership, and the interests of American life have made them. They cannot be expected to be any better than they are, until they have been sufficiently shown the way; and they cannot be blamed for being as bad as they are, until it is proved that they have deliberately rejected better leadership. No such proof has ever been offered.

Some disgruntled Americans talk as if in a democracy the path of the aspiring individual should be made peculiarly safe and easy. As soon as any young man appears whose ideals are perched a little higher than those of his neighbors, and who has acquired some knack of performance, he should apparently be immediately taken at his own valuation and loaded with rewards and opportunities. The public should take off its hat and ask him humbly to step into the limelight and show himself off for the popular edification. He should not be obliged to make himself interesting to the public. They should immediately make themselves interested in him, and bolt whatever he chooses to offer them as the very meat and wine of the mind. But surely one does not need to urge very emphatically that popularity won upon such easy terms would be demoralizing to any but very highly gifted and very cool-headed men. The American people are absolutely right in insisting that an aspirant for popular eminence shall be compelled to make himself interesting to them, and shall not be welcomed as a fountain of excellence and enlightenment until he has found some means of forcing his meat and his wine down their reluctant throats. And if the aspiring individual accepts this condition as tantamount to an order that he must haul down the flag of his own individual purpose in order to obtain popular appreciation and reward, it is he who is unworthy to lead, not they who are unworthy of being led. The problem and business of his life is precisely that of keeping his flag flying at any personal cost or sacrifice; and if his own particular purpose demands that his flying flag shall be loyally saluted, it is his own business also to see that his flag is well worthy of a popular salutation. In occasional instances these two aspects of a special performer's business may prove to be incompatible. Every real adventure must be attended by risks. Every real battle involves a certain number of casualties. But better the risk and the wounded and the dead than sham battles and unearned victories.

There is only one way in which popular standards and preferences can be improved. The men whose standards are higher must learn to express their better message in a popularly interesting manner. The people will never be converted to the appreciation of excellent special performances by argumentation, reproaches, lectures, associations, or persuasion. They will rally to the good thing, only because the good thing has been made to look good to them; and so far as individual Americans are not capable of making their good things look good to a sufficient number of their fellow-countrymen, they will on the whole deserve any neglect from which they may suffer. They themselves constitute the only efficient source of really formative education. In so far as a public is lacking, a public must be created. They must mold their followers after their own likeness—as all aspirants after the higher individual eminence have always been obliged to do.

The manner in which the result is to be brought about may be traced by considering the case of the contemporary American architect—a case which is typical because, while popular architectural preferences are inferior, the very existence of the architect depends upon his ability to please a considerable number of clients. The average well-trained architect in good standing meets this situation by designing as well as he can, consistent with the building-up an abundant and lucrative practice. There are doubtless certain things which he would not do even to get or keep a job; but on the whole it is not unfair to say that his first object is to get and to keep the job, and his second to do good work. The consequence is that, in compromising the integrity of his work, he necessarily builds his own practice upon a shifting foundation. His work belongs to the well-populated class of the good-enough. It can have little distinctive excellence; and it cannot, by its peculiar force and quality, attract a clientele. Presumably, it has the merit of satisfying prevailing tastes; but the architect, who is designing only as well as popular tastes will permit, suffers under one serious disadvantage. There are hundreds of his associates who can do it just as well; and he is necessarily obliged to face demoralizing competition. Inasmuch as it is not his work itself that counts, he is obliged to build up his clientele by other means. He is obliged to make himself personally popular, to seek social influence and private "pulls"; and his whole life becomes that of a man who is selling his personality instead of fulfilling it. His relations with his clients suffer from the same general condition. They have come to him, not because they are particularly attracted by his work and believe in it, but, as a rule, because of some accidental and arbitrary reason. His position, consequently, is lacking in independence and authority. He has not enough personal prestige as a designer to insist upon having his own way in all essential matters. He tends to become too much of an agent, employed for the purpose of carrying out another man's wishes, instead of a professional expert, whose employer trusts his judgment and leans loyally on his advice.

Take, on the other hand, the case of the exceptional architect who insists upon doing his very best. Assuming sufficient ability and training, the work of the man who does his very best is much more likely to possess some quality of individual merit, which more or less sharply distinguishes it from that of other architects. He has a monopoly of his own peculiar qualities. Such merit may not be noticed by many people; but it will probably be noticed by a few. The few who are attracted will receive a more than usually vivid impression. They will talk, and begin to create a little current of public opinion favorable to the designer. The new clients who come to him will be influenced either by their appreciation of the actual merit of the work or by this approving body of opinion. They will come, that is, because they want him and believe in his work. His own personal position, consequently, becomes much more independent and authoritative than is usually the case. He is much less likely to be embarrassed by ignorant and irrelevant interference. He can continue to turn out designs genuinely expressive of his own individual purpose. If he be an intelligent as well as a sincere and gifted designer, his work will, up to a certain point, grow in distinction and individuality; and as good or better examples of it become more numerous, it will attract and hold an increasing body of approving opinion. The designer will in this way have gradually created his own special public. He will be molding and informing the architectural taste and preference of his admirers. Without in any way compromising his own standards, he will have brought himself into a constructive relation with a part at least of the public, and the effect of his work will soon extend beyond the sphere of his own personal clientele. In so far as he has succeeded in popularizing a better quality of architectural work, he would be by way of strengthening the hands of all of his associates who were standing for similar ideals and methods.

It would be absurd to claim that every excellent and competent special performer who sticks incorruptibly to his individual purpose and standard can succeed in creating a special public, molded somewhat by his personal influence. The ability to succeed is not given to everybody. It cannot always be obtained by sincere industry and able and single-minded work. The qualities needed in addition to those mentioned will vary in different occupations and according to the accidental circumstances of different cases; but they are not always the qualities which a man can acquire. Men will fail who have deserved to succeed and who might have succeeded with a little more tenacity or under slightly more favorable conditions. Men who have deserved to fail will succeed because of certain collateral but partly irrelevant merits—just as an architect may succeed who is ingenious about making his clients' houses comfortable and building them cheap. In a thousand different ways an individual enterprise, conceived and conducted with faith and ability, may prove to be abortive. Moreover, the sacrifices necessary to success are usually genuine sacrifices. The architect who wishes to build up a really loyal following by really good work must deliberately reject many possible jobs; and he must frequently spend upon the accepted jobs more money than is profitable. But the foregoing is merely tantamount to saying, as we have said, that the adventure involves a real risk. A resolute, intelligent man undertakes a doubtful and difficult enterprise, not because it is sure to succeed, but because if it succeeds, it is worth the risk and the cost, and such is the case with the contemporary American adventurer. The individual independence, appreciation, and fulfillment which he secures in the event of success are assuredly worth a harder and a more dangerous fight than the one by which frequently he is confronted. In any particular case a man, as we have admitted, may put up a good fight without securing the fruits of victory, and his adventure may end, not merely in defeat, but in self-humiliation. But if any general tendency exists to shirk, or to back down, or to place the responsibility for personal ineptitude on the public, it means, not that the fight was hopeless, but that the warriors were lacking in the necessary will and ability.

The case of the statesman, the man of letters, the philanthropist, or the reformer does not differ essentially from that of the architect. They may need for their particular purposes a larger or a smaller popular following, a larger or smaller amount of moral courage, and a more or less peculiar kind of intellectual efficiency; but wherever there is any bridge to be built between their own purposes and standards and those of the public, they must depend chiefly upon their own resources for its construction. The best that society can do to assist them at present is to establish good schools of preliminary instruction. For the rest it is the particular business of the exceptional individual to impose himself on the public; and the necessity he is under of creating his own following may prove to be helpful to him as his own exceptional achievements are to his followers. The fact that he is obliged to make a public instead of finding one ready-made, or instead of being able by the subsidy of a prince to dispense with one—this necessity will in the long run tend to keep his work vital and human. The danger which every peculiarly able individual specialist runs is that of overestimating the value of his own purpose and achievements, and so of establishing a false and delusive relation between his own world and the larger world of human affairs and interests. Such a danger cannot be properly checked by the conscious moral and intellectual education of the individual, because when he is filled too full of amiable intentions and ideas, he is by way of attenuating his individual impulse and power. But the individual who is forced to create his own public is forced also to make his own special work attractive to a public; and when he succeeds in accomplishing this result without hauling down his personal flag, his work tends to take on a more normal and human character.

It tends, that is, to be socially as well as individually formative. The peculiarly competent individual is obliged to accept the responsibilities of leadership with its privileges and fruits. There is no escape from the circle by which he finds himself surrounded. He cannot obtain the opportunities, the authority, and the independence which he needs for his own individual fulfillment, unless he builds up a following; and he cannot build up a secure personal following without making his peculiar performances appeal to some general human interest. The larger and more general the interest he can arouse, the more secure and the more remunerative his personal independence becomes. It by no means necessarily follows that he will increase his following by increasing the excellence of his work, or that he will not frequently find it difficult to keep his following without allowing his work to deteriorate. No formula, reconciling the individual and the popular interest, can be devised which will work automatically. The reconciliation must always remain a matter of victorious individual or national contrivance. But it is none the less true that the chance of fruitful reconciliation always exists, and in a democracy it should exist under peculiarly wholesome conditions. The essential nature of a democracy compels it to insist that individual power of all kinds, political, economic, or intellectual, shall not be perversely and irresponsibly exercised. The individual democrat is obliged no less to insist in his own interest that the responsible exercise of power shall not be considered equivalent to individual mediocrity and dependence. These two demands will often conflict; but the vitality of a democracy hangs upon its ability to keep both of them vigorous and assertive. Just in so far as individual democrats find ways of asserting their independence in the very act of redeeming their responsibility, the social body of which they form a part is marching toward the goal of human betterment.

It cannot be claimed, however, that the foregoing account of the relation between the individual and a nationalized democracy is even yet entirely satisfactory. No relation can be satisfactory which implies such a vast amount of individual suffering and defeat and such a huge waste of social and individual effort. The relation is only as satisfactory as it can be made under the circumstances. The individual cannot be immediately transformed by individual purpose and action into a consummate social type, any more than society can be immediately transformed by purposive national action into a consummate residence for the individual. In both cases amelioration is a matter of intelligent experimental contrivance based upon the nature of immediate conditions and equipped with every available resource and weapon. In both cases these experiments must be indefinitely continued, their lessons candidly learned, and the succeeding experiments based upon past failures and achievements. Throughout the whole task of experimental educational advance the different processes of individual and social amelioration will be partly opposed, partly supplementary, and partly parallel; but in so far as any genuine advance is made, the opposition should be less costly, and cooeperation, if not easier, at least more remunerative.

The peculiar kind of individual self-assertion which has been outlined in the foregoing sections of this chapter has been adapted, not to perfect, but to actual moral, social, and intellectual conditions. For the present Americans must cultivate competent individual independence somewhat unscrupulously, because their peculiar democratic tradition has hitherto discouraged and under-valued a genuinely individualistic practice and ideal. In order to restore the balance, the individual must emancipate himself at a considerable sacrifice and by somewhat forcible means; and to a certain extent he must continue those sacrifices throughout the whole of his career. He must proclaim and, if able, he must assert his own leadership, but he must be always somewhat on his guard against his followers. He must always keep in mind that the very leadership which is the fruit of his mastery and the condition of his independence is also, considering the nature and disposition of his average follower, a dangerous temptation; and while he must not for that reason scorn popular success, he must always conscientiously reckon its actual cost. And just because a leader cannot wholly trust himself to his following, so the followers must always keep a sharp lookout lest their leaders be leading them astray. For the kind of leadership which we have postulated above is by its very definition and nature liable to become perverse and distracting.

But just in so far as the work of social and individual amelioration advances, the condition will be gradually created necessary to completer mutual confidence between the few exceptional leaders and the many "plain people." At present the burden of establishing any genuine means of communication rests very heavily upon the exceptionally able individual. But after a number of exceptionally able individuals have imposed their own purposes and standards and created a following, they will have made the task of their successors easier. Higher technical standards and more adequate forms of expression will have become better established. The "public" will have learned to expect and to appreciate more simple and appropriate architectural forms, more sincere and better-formed translations of life in books and on the stage, and more independent and better equipped political leadership. The "public," that is, instead of being as much satisfied as it is at present with cheap forms and standards, will be prepared to assume part of the expense of establishing better forms and methods of social intercourse. In this way a future generation of leaders may be enabled to conquer a following with a smaller individual expenditure of painful sacrifices and wasted effort. They can take for granted a generally higher technical and formal tradition, and they themselves will be freed from an over-conscious preoccupation with the methods and the mechanism of their work. Their attention will naturally be more than ever concentrated on the proper discrimination of their subject-matter; and just in so far as they are competent to create an impression or a following, that impression should be more profound and the following more loyal and more worthy of loyalty.

Above all, a substantial improvement in the purposes and standards of individual self-expression should create a more bracing intellectual atmosphere. Better standards will serve not only as guides but as weapons. In so far as they are embodied in competent performances, they are bound also to be applied in the critical condemnation of inferior work; and the critic himself will assume a much more important practical job than he now has. Criticism is a comparatively neglected art among Americans, because a sufficient number of people do not care whether and when the current practices are really good or bad. The practice of better standards and their appreciation will give the critic both a more substantial material for his work and a larger public. It will be his duty to make the American public conscious of the extent of the individual successes or failures and the reasons therefor; and in case his practice improves with that of the other arts, he should become a more important performer, not only because of his better opportunities and public, but because of his increase of individual prowess. He should not only be better equipped for the performance of his work and the creation of a public following, but he should have a more definite and resolute conviction of the importance of his own job. It is the business of the competent individual as a type to force society to recognize the meaning and the power of his own special purposes. It is the special business of the critic to make an ever larger portion of the public conscious of these expressions of individual purpose, of their relations one to another, of their limitations, and of their promises. He not only popularizes and explains for the benefit of a larger public the substance and significance of admirable special performance, but he should in a sense become the standard bearer of the whole movement.

The function of the critic hereafter will consist in part of carrying on an incessant and relentless warfare on the prevailing American intellectual insincerity. He can make little headway unless he is sustained by a large volume of less expressly controversial individual intellectual self-expression; but on the other hand, there are many serious obstructions to any advancing intellectual movement, which he should and must overthrow. In so doing he has every reason to be more unscrupulous and aggressive even than his brethren-in-arms. He must stab away at the gelatinous mass of popular indifference, sentimentality, and complacency, even though he seems quite unable to penetrate to the quick and draw blood. For the time the possibility of immediate constructive achievement in his own special field is comparatively small, and he is the less responsible for the production of any substantial effect, or the building up of any following except a handful of free lances like himself. He need only assure himself of his own competence with his own peculiar tools, his own good-humored sincerity, and his disinterestedness in the pursuit of his legitimate purposes, in order to feel fully justified in pushing his strokes home. In all serious warfare, people have to be really wounded for some good purpose; and in this particular fight there may be some chance that not only a good cause, but the very victim of the blow, may possibly be benefited by its delivery. The stabbing of a mass of public opinion into some consciousness of its active torpor, particularly when many particles of the mass are actively torpid because of admirable patriotic intentions,—that is a job which needs sharp weapons, intense personal devotion, and a positive indifference to consequences.

Yet if the American national Promise is ever to be fulfilled, a more congenial and a more interesting task will also await the critic—meaning by the word "critic" the voice of the specific intellectual interest, the lover of wisdom, the seeker of the truth. Every important human enterprise has its meaning, even though the conduct of the affair demands more than anything else a hard and inextinguishable faith. Such a faith will imply a creed; and its realizations will go astray unless the faithful are made conscious of the meaning of their performances or failures. The most essential and edifying business of the critic will always consist in building up "a pile of better thoughts," based for the most part upon the truth resident in the lives of their predecessors and contemporaries, but not without its outlook toward an immediate and even remote future. There can be nothing final about the creed unless there be something final about the action and purposes of which it is the expression. It must be constantly modified in order to define new experiences and renewed in order to meet unforeseen emergencies. But it should grow, just in so far as the enterprise itself makes new conquests and unfolds new aspects of truth. Democracy is an enterprise of this kind. It may prove to be the most important moral and social enterprise as yet undertaken by mankind; but it is still a very young enterprise, whose meaning and promise is by no means clearly understood. It is continually meeting unforeseen emergencies and gathering an increasing experience. The fundamental duty of a critic in a democracy is to see that the results of these experiences are not misinterpreted and that the best interpretation is embodied in popular doctrinal form. The critic consequently is not so much the guide as the lantern which illuminates the path. He may not pretend to know the only way or all the ways; but he should know as much as can be known about the traveled road.

Men endowed with high moral gifts and capable of exceptional moral achievements have also their special part to play in the building of an enduring democratic structure. In the account which has been given of the means and conditions of democratic fulfillment, the importance of this part has been under-estimated; but the under-estimate has been deliberate. It is very easy and in a sense perfectly true to declare that democracy needs for its fulfillment a peculiarly high standard of moral behavior; and it is even more true to declare that a democratic scheme of moral values reaches its consummate expression in the religion of human brotherhood. Such a religion can be realized only through the loving-kindness which individuals feel toward their fellow-men and particularly toward their fellow-countrymen; and it is through such feelings that the network of mutual loyalties and responsibilities woven in a democratic nation become radiant and expansive. Whenever an individual democrat, like Abraham Lincoln, emerges, who succeeds in offering an example of specific efficiency united with supreme kindliness of feeling, he qualifies as a national hero of consummate value. But—at present—a profound sense of human brotherhood is no substitute for specific efficiency. The men most possessed by intense brotherly feelings usually fall into an error, as Tolstoy has done, as to the way in which those feelings can be realized. Consummate faith itself is no substitute for good work. Back of any work of moral conversion must come a long and slow process of social reorganization and individual emancipation; and not until the reorganization has been partly accomplished, and the individual released, disciplined and purified, will the soil be prepared for the crowning work of some democratic Saint Francis.

Hence, in the foregoing account of a possible democratic fulfillment, attention has been concentrated on that indispensable phase of the work which can be attained by conscious means. Until this work is measurably accomplished no evangelist can do more than convert a few men for a few years. But it has been admitted throughout that the task of individual and social regeneration must remain incomplete and impoverished, until the conviction and the feeling of human brotherhood enters into possession of the human spirit. The laborious work of individual and social fulfillment may eventually be transfigured by an outburst of enthusiasm—one which is not the expression of a mood, but which is substantially the finer flower of an achieved experience and a living tradition. If such a moment ever arrives, it will be partly the creation of some democratic evangelist—some imitator of Jesus who will reveal to men the path whereby they may enter into spiritual possession of their individual and social achievements, and immeasurably increase them by virtue of personal regeneration.

Be it understood, however, that no prophecy of any such consummate moment has been made. Something of the kind may happen, in case the American or any other democracy seeks patiently and intelligently to make good a complete and a coherent democratic ideal. For better or worse, democracy cannot be disentangled from an aspiration toward human perfectibility, and hence from the adoption of measures looking in the direction of realizing such an aspiration. It may be that the attempt will not be seriously made, or that, if it is, nothing will come of it. Mr. George Santayana concludes a chapter on "Democracy" in his "Reason in Society" with the following words: "For such excellence to grow general mankind must be notably transformed. If a noble and civilized democracy is to subsist, the common citizen must be something of a saint and something of a hero. We see, therefore, how justly flattering and profound, and at the same time how ominous, was Montesquieu's saying that the principle of democracy is virtue." The principle of democracy is virtue, and when we consider the condition of contemporary democracies, the saying may seem to be more ominous than flattering. But if a few hundred years from now it seems less ominous, the threat will be removed in only one way. The common citizen can become something of a saint and something of a hero, not by growing to heroic proportions in his own person, but by the sincere and enthusiastic imitation of heroes and saints, and whether or not he will ever come to such imitation will depend upon the ability of his exceptional fellow-countrymen to offer him acceptable examples of heroism and saintliness.



INDEX

A

Abolitionism, the good American democratic view of, 49; belief of supporters of, regarding slavery, 78-79; a just estimate of work of, 80-81; perverted conception of democracy held by party of, 80-81, 86; baleful spirit of, inherited by Republicans, and its later effects, 95; was the one practical result of the struggle of American intelligence for emancipation, during the Middle Period, 422; strength and weakness of the intellectual ferment shown by, 423.

Administrative reform in states, 333 ff.

"Admirable Crichton," trait of the English character illustrated by, 14.

Africans, as proper subjects for colonizing, 259.

Agricultural community, the Middle West at first primarily a, 62-63; passage from, into an urban and industrial community, 101; the transformation of Great Britain from an, to an industrial community, 234.

Agricultural laborers, effect of organization of labor on, 396.

"American Farmer, Letters of an," 8-9, 10.

Apprentices to trades, 391.

Architects, illustration drawn from, of improvement of popular standards, 444-445.

Aristocracy in British political system, 231-232; loss of ground by Great Britain traceable to, 233-235; resignation of economic responsibility by, a betrayal of the national interest, 234-235.

Armies, essential and justifiable under present conditions, 256 ff., 264.

Arts, technical standard in practice of, 434-435.

Asiatics, as proper subjects for colonizing, 259.

Association, necessity of, for nations as well as for individuals, 263-264; the modern nation the best machinery for raising level of human, 284; necessity of, in case of laboring classes, 388.

Australian ballot, professional politicians uninjured by, 341; question of desirability of, 341-342.

Austria, policy of Bismarck toward, 248-249.

Austria-Hungary, effect of disintegration of, on Germany, 253; unstable condition of, renders disarmament impossible, 257; secondary position of, in Europe, and reasons, 311.

B

Balance of Power, development of doctrine of, 220.

Bank, National, Hamilton's policy in creating, 39; reasons for hostility of Jacksonian Democrats to, 57; view of, held by Republicans, 57-58; campaign of Jackson and his followers against, 58-59; Whigs' failure in attempt to re-charter, 68.

Bank examiners, difference between Federal commissions and, 363-364.

Birth-rate, lowering of, in France, 245.

Bismarck, Otto von, 8, 242, 256; personal career of, 247; unification of Germany by, 247-249; course of, as Imperial Chancellor, 249 ff.; inheritance left to German Empire by, in the way of overbearing attitude to domestic and foreign opponents, 251; provoking of Germany's two wars by, was justifiable, 256; quoted on what constitutes the real nation, 265-266.

"Boss," the coming of the, 118-121; character and position of the, 122; dealings of, with big corporations, 122-124; his specialized leadership fills a real and permanent need, 124-125; is the unofficial ruler of his community, 125; is the logical outcome of a certain conception of the democratic state, 148-149; method proposed for destroying the, 338-341; Australian ballot and system of direct primaries have no injurious effect on, 341-343.

Bourbon monarchy, the, 219-220; cause of downfall of, 220.

Bryan, William J., 136, 144, 151; particular consideration of, as a reformer, 156 ff.; special reforms advocated by, 156-158; incoherence in political thinking shown by, 158-159; policy of, toward large corporations, 358.

Business man, origins of the typical American, 106-108; business regarded as warfare by, 107-108; relation between railroads and the, 109-111; rise of, in Great Britain, and relations with aristocracy, 234-235.

Butler, Nicholas Murray, quoted, 408.

C

Cabinet, or executive council, suggested for governors, 338-339.

Calhoun, John, a leader of the Whigs, 66-67, 79, 82.

Canada, question of cooeperation of, in establishment of a peaceful international system, 303-304; desirability of greater commercial freedom between United States and, 304-305; preparing the way for closer political association, 305-306; lines along which treaty between United States, Great Britain, and, might be made, 306.

Carnegie, Andrew, 202, 402.

Catholic Church, as a bond between Western European states, 217; losing battle of, with political authority, 283.

Central America, opportunity for improving international political conditions in, 303.

Centralization, nationality and, 272-279; demand for more rather than less, because of growing centralization of American activity, 274-275; increase in, injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy, 276; perniciousness of prejudice against, 278-279.

Chapman, John Jay, work by, cited, 408; quoted, 418.

Checks and balances, system of, 33, 316; system of, proves especially unsuitable for state governments, 323-324.

China, questions raised concerning American foreign policy by, 309-310.

Christianity a common bond between early European states, 217 ff.

Church, change in function of the, resulting from change in modern nations, 283.

Cities, relations of state governments to, 347-348; as fields for economically and socially constructive experimentation, 349; home rule in, 348-350; policy of, toward public service corporations, 372-373; measures to be taken against monopolies in, 374.

City states, Greek and mediaeval, 215.

Civil service reform, 143; disappointing results of, 334-335; causes of partial failure of, 335-337.

Civil War, a case of a justifiable war, 255-256; as a surgical operation, 269.

Class discrimination, 129, 191.

Clay, Henry, Whig doctrine of, 52, 66; reason for failure of ideas of, 69-70; as a believer in compromises, 76; an example of cheapening of intellectual individuality of leaders during Middle Period, 427.

Cleveland, Grover, 168.

Colonial expansion, the principle of nationality not hostile to, 259; incompatibility of, for European powers, with aggrandizement at home, 260-262; not a cause of wars, but the contrary, 260-261; question of what are limits of a practicable, 262-263; is accomplishing a work without which a permanent international settlement would be impossible, 263; validity of, even for a democracy, 308; of the United States, 308-310.

Commerce, question of control of, by state or Federal government, 351-357.

Commissions, supervision of corporations by, 360-361; the objection to government by, 362; false principle involved in government by, in that commissions make the laws which they administer, 364; public ownership contrasted with government by, 366; the great objection to government by, in its effect on the capable industrial manager, 368.

Communal state, the mediaeval, 215, 216.

Communities, religious, 283; various brands of socialistic, during American Middle Period, 422.

Competition, wastes of, lessened by big corporations, 115; restriction of, by labor unions, 127, 386-388; cooeperation substituted for, by big corporations, 359.

Compromise, erected into an ultimate principle by British governing class, 234, 238; in America in the interests of harmony, to be avoided, 269-270.

Congressional usurpation, danger to American people from, 69.

Constabulary, state, 344-345.

Constitution, the Federal, founders of, displayed distrust of democracy, 33-34; despite error of Federalists, has proved an instrument capable of flexible development, 34-35; legal restrictions in, 35; defect of unmodifiability of, 36; on the whole a successful achievement, 36-37; an accomplishment of the leaders of opinion rather than of the body of the people, 38; sanctioning of slavery by, 72; power bestowed on lawyers by, 132-134; immutability of, regarded as a fault in the American system, 200; serious changes in, not to be thought of, at present, 316; in all respects but one is not in need of immediate amendment, 351; distinction made in, between state and inter-state commerce is irrelevant to real facts of industry and trade, 351-352; will in the end have to dispense with the distinction, 356-357.

Constitutions of states, 119.

Constitutional Unionists, belief of, concerning slavery, 78; present-day lawyers compared to, 137.

Corporation lawyers, 136.

Corporations, growth of big, 110-116; dealings between big, 113-114; fights between, prelude closer agreement, 114; decrease in wastes of competition by, 115; profits of, disproportionate to their services, 115; equivocal position in respect to the law, 115-116; unprecedented power wielded by, 116; political corruption and social disintegration the result of, 117; the political "Boss" and the, 122-124; similarities and dissimilarities of labor unions and, 130-131, 386; agitation against and its varying character, 143; Federal regulation of, advocated by W.J. Bryan, 158; problem of control of, 351 ff.; interference of state governments with railroad, insurance, and other corporations, 352-355; exclusive Federal control of, an essential to their proper conduct, 355-356; two courses that may be followed in policy of central government toward, 357; W.J. Bryan's suggested policy toward, 358; the Roosevelt-Taft programme, of recognition tempered by regulation, 358-360; tendency of, to substitute cooeperation for competition, 359; supervision of, by commissions, 360-361; danger of impairing efficiency of, by depriving them of freedom, 362-363; laws which should be made for, on repeal of Sherman Anti-Trust Law, 364; the proposed remedy for management of, is one more way of shirking the ultimate problem, 367; disposal of question of excessive profits of, 370; state taxation of, one means of control, 370; American municipal policy toward public service corporations, 372-373; the question of public ownership, 375-379 (see Public ownership); necessity for uniformity in taxation of, 385. See Municipal corporations and Public service corporations.

Council, legislative and administrative, suggested for state governments, 329-330; appointment of an executive council or cabinet by the governor, 338.

Courts, failure of American criminal and civil, 318; protection of inter-state corporations by Federal, 355-356; decisions of, on labor questions, 394.

Crevecoeur, Hector St. John de, quoted, 8-9.

Criminal justice, failure of American, 318; reform of, by states, 344-345.

Criminals, treatment of, by states, 345-346.

Critics and criticism in America, 450-451; broadening of the work of, 451-452.

Crazier, John B., quoted, 15-16.

Cuba, relations between United States and, 303, 308.

Cumberland Road, the, 67.

D

Debt, national, Hamilton's belief in good effects of, 40-41.

Democracy, as represented by Republicans at close of Revolution, 28-29, 30-31; Federalists' antagonism to, 32-33; misfortune of founding national government on distrust of, 33-34; misunderstanding of, as an ideal, in 1786, 34; Hamilton's distrust of, 41; Jefferson the leader of, against Hamilton and his policies, 42-43; Jefferson's view of, as extreme individualism, 43; real policy of Jeffersonian, as revealed upon triumph of his party, 46-49; Jeffersonian, becomes reconciled with Federalism, 46-47; fifty-year sway of Jeffersonian tradition, 48; questionable results of triumph of Jeffersonian, 50-51; existence of a genuine American, proved by War of 1812, 54-55 (see Democracy, Jacksonian); slavery as an institution of, 80 ff.; work of Abolitionists in the name of, 80-81; Abolitionists' perverted conception of, 80-81, 86; Lincoln an example of the kind of human excellence to be fashioned by, 89; Lincoln's realization of his ideal of a, 94; the labor union and the tradition of, 126 ff.; the American, and the social problem, 138-140; the ordinary conception of, as a matter of popular government, 176-180; the true meaning of, 176 ff.; and discrimination, 185-193; the real definition of, 207 ff.; a superior form of political organization in so far as liberty and equality make for human brotherhood, 207-208; principles of nationality and, in England, 230 ff.; and nationality in France, 239 ff.; principles of, and of nationality in America, 267 ff.; and peace, 308 ff.

Democracy, Jacksonian (or Western), 52 ff.; suspected by Hamilton, appreciated by Jefferson, 52-53; disapproves Jefferson's policy of peaceful warfare, 53; forces Madison into second war with England, 53-54; the first genuinely national body of Americans, 54-55; characteristics of, 55-56; reasons for hostility of, to office-holding clique and the National Bank, 57; causes leading to introduction of spoils system by, 57, 59-60; error of views of, 60-61; the first body of Americans genuinely democratic in feeling, 61-62; the true point of view in studying the, 63-65; reason for triumph of, over Whigs, 69-70; attitude of, toward slavery, 73-74, 84; in 1850 Stephen A. Douglas becomes leader of, 84; rally to Lincoln's standard, 86; made to understand for the first time by Lincoln that American nationality is a living principle, 88.

Direct primaries, fallacy of system of, 342-343.

Disarmament, undesirability of, under present conditions in Europe, 257; a partial, would be fatal, 264.

Discrimination, democracy and, 185-193; class, in certain legislative acts, 191-192; constructive, 193 ff.

Distribution of wealth, improvement in, 209-210; in France, 244-245; equalization of, by graduated inheritance tax, 381-385.

Divorces, the matter of, 346.

Douglas, Stephen. A., 84-86, 281.

E

Economic liberty of the individual, 201-206.

Economy, national vs. international, 235.

Education, chaotic condition of American system of, 318; opportunity for state activities concerning, 346; individual vs. collective, 399 ff.; is the real vehicle of improvement, by which the American is trained for his democracy, 400; American faith in, characterized by superstition, 400-402; popular interest in, does not give importance to the word of the educated man, 403; what constitutes the real education of the individual, 403-405; efficiency of national, similarly, depends on a nation's ability to profit by experience, 405; education of the individual cannot accomplish the work of collective national, 407; value of a reform movement for, 408; the work of collective, not complete in itself, but followed by certain implications, 428.

Elzbacher, O., quoted, 235.

Emancipation, conditions of individual, 409 ff.; attempts at individual, 421 ff.; means of individual, 427 ff.

Embargo, Jefferson's policy of commercial, 42; disapproved by Jackson and Western Democrats, 53.

England, faith of Englishmen in, 2; an early example of political efficiency found in, 217; increase of national efficiency of, by attention strictly to her own affairs, 219; national development of, as contrasted with France, 220-221; principles of nationality and of democracy in, 230 ff.; national efficiency of, until recently, 231; aristocracy in political system of, 231-232; causes and remedies of loss of ground by, 232 ff.; the principle of compromise carried too far by aristocracy of, 234, 238; political and social subserviency in, resulting in political privilege and social favoritism, 236-237; national idea of, is a matter of freedom, 267.

Equality, stress laid by Jeffersonian Democrats on, 44; sacrifice of liberty for, by Jeffersonian Democrats, 44-45; desire for, of Jacksonian Democracy, leads to war on office-holding clique and the National Bank, 57; economic and social, in France, and questionable results, 245.

Equal rights, the Jeffersonian principle of, 44 ff.; tradition of, results in bosses and trusts, 148-150; the slogan of all parties, 151; Roosevelt's inconsistency on the point of, 172; the principle of, is the expression of an essential aspect of democracy, 180; insufficiency of the principle, 181; inequalities which have resulted from doctrine of, 182-183; grievances resulting from doctrine, 185; interference with, in Pure Food Laws, factory legislation, Inter-state Commerce Acts, etc., 191-192; subordinated and made helpful to the principle of human brotherhood, 207-208; a logical application of, would wrongly support competition against cooeperation, 359.

"Era of good feeling," 51.

Evangelization, law of, 282.

Executives of states, proposed administrative system for, 338-341.

F

Factory legislation, justifiable class discrimination in, 191.

Faguet, Emile, quoted, 193, 208.

Farmers, necessity of organization not felt by, 126; present position of British, 235.

Farming, improvement of, in Prussia, 250; value of specialization in, 430.

Farm laborers, 396.

Fashoda incident, 260.

Federalism, at close of Revolutionary War, represented by Hamilton, 28-29; class which supported, 30; views held by supporters of, of anti-Federalists, 32-33; supporters of, founded national government on distrust of democracy, 33; error and misfortune of so doing, 33-34; the Hamiltonian brand of, shown in constructive legislation following framing of Constitution, 39; reconciliation of Republicanism and, 46-47; doubtful results of combination of Republicanism and, 50-51; Whig doctrine of Clay contrasted with Hamilton's Federalism, 52.

Federalist, Hamilton's, quotation from, 37.

Federalists, the Whigs an improvement on, 67. See Federalism.

Financial policy of Hamilton, 39.

Foreign policy, of Great Britain, 8; of European states, 254-264; natural method of arriving at a definite, as shown by England and France, 257-258; bearing of colonial expansion on, 260-262; relation between national domestic policy and, 310.

Foreign policy, American, 289 ff.; the Monroe Doctrine in, 291-297; of Jeffersonian Republicans, 292; wisdom of continued policy of isolation, 298, 310; correct policy would be to make American system stand for peace, 299; international system advocated for South and Central America, and Mexico, 300-303; the question of relations with Canada, 303-306; suggested treaty bearing on relations between United States, Canada, and Great Britain, 306; systematic development of, an absolute necessity, 306-307; colonial expansion, 308-309; questions of, raised by future of China, 309-310; isolation of United States is only comparative, under modern conditions, 310.

Fortunes, the inheritors of great, 204, 382-384.

France, faith of Frenchmen in, 2; origins of national state in, 218, 219; effect of Revolution on national principle in, 223-224; lack of representative institutions a defect in its government to-day, 228; democracy and nationality in, 239 ff.; a Republic proved to be best form of government for, 241-242; democracy not thoroughly nationalized in, 242-243; economic problem in, 244-245; lack of national spirit in official domestic policy, 243-244; failure of, as a colonial power as long as striving for European aggrandizement, 261; national idea of, is democratic but is rendered difficult and its value limited, 268.

Franchises, American municipal policy toward public service corporations', 372-375.

Freedom, American tradition of, 421-422; the failure to attain, 422 ff.

Free trade in Great Britain, 234.

French Revolution, the, 222 ff.

G

Garrison, William Lloyd, mental attitude and policy of, contrasted with Lincoln's, 95, 427.

George, Henry, Jr., cited, 151.

Germany, effect of religious wars and lack of national policy in, during early development, 219; nationality in, increased after Napoleon, 225; outstripping of England by, industrially, 232, 233; relation between democracy and nationality in, 246 ff.; system of protection, state ownership of railways, improvement in farming, etc., 250; result of "paternalism" has been industrial expansion surpassing other European states, 250-251; position of, not so high as ten years ago, 251; the Social Democrats, 251-252; dubious international standing of, 252-253; is the power which has most to gain from a successful war, 252-253; is the cause of a better understanding between England, France, and Russia, 253-254; effect of success or failure of foreign policy on domestic policy, 254; further consideration of international position of, and bearing on disarmament question, 256-259; colonial expansion of, despite her expectation of European aggrandizement, 261; danger of this policy, 261-262; national idea of, turns upon the principle of official leadership toward a goal of national greatness, 267-268.

Governors of states, 119; suggested reforms relative to administration of, 338 ff.; "House of," proposed, 347.

Great Britain, effect of position of, on domestic and foreign policy, 8, 261; question whether colonial expansion of, has been carried too far, 262; relations between Canada and, 305-306; suggested arrangement between United States and, relative to Canada, 306. See England.

H

Hamilton, Alexander, doctrines of, versus those of Jefferson, 28-29, 45-46, 153; insight and energy of, saved states from disunion, 37; quoted on the Constitution, 37; importance of work of, in constructive legislation, 38-39; broad view taken by, of governmental functions, 39-40; doubtful theory of, regarding national debt, 40-41; reasons for loss of popularity and influence of, 41-42; philosophy of, concerning liberty and the method of protecting it, 44; Roosevelt's improvement on principle of, 169; adaptability of doctrines of, to democracy without injury to themselves, 214; foreign policy of, 289-290, 292-293.

Harriman, Edward, 202.

Hearst, William R., 136, 151, 155; as a reformer, 142, 143-144; radicalism of, 163; inconsistencies, factiousness, and dangerous revolutionary spirit of, 164-166; viewed as the logical punishment upon the American people for their sins of wrong tradition, 166.

Heresies of American Middle Period, and sterile results of, 422-426.

Hill, James J., 202.

Hodder, Alfred, quoted, 144, 160, 162.

Holland, possible incorporation of, with German Empire, 253.

Holy Alliance, political system established by, 226; Monroe Doctrine the American retort to, 291.

Home rule, municipal, 347-350.

"House of Governors," proposed, 347.

Howe, Frederic C., 151.

Hughes, Governor, 135.

Human brotherhood, liberty and equality subordinated to principle of, in ideal democracy, 207-208; the only method of realizing the religion of, 453.

I

Ideal, necessity of an individual and a national, 5-6.

Income taxation, 384-385.

Individual emancipation, conditions of, 409 ff.; attempts at, 421 ff.; means of, 427 ff.

Individualism, found in both Federalists and Republicans at close of Revolution, 32; free play allowed to, through triumph of Jefferson and defeat of Hamilton, 49; attitude of the pioneer Western Democrat toward, 64-65; disappearance of political, in the machine, 117-125; encouragement of, and restriction of central authority, result in the "Boss" and the "tainted" millionaire, 148-149; abandonment of the Jeffersonian conception of, necessary for real reform, 152-154; in education, as opposed to collective education, 399-409; damage to American individuality from existing system of economic, 409 ff.; method of exercising influence of, on behalf of social amelioration, 441 ff.

Individuality, place of, in Middle West of pioneer days, 63-65; disappearance of, in work of the specialist in later development of the country, 102-103; injury to, from, existing system of economic individualism, 409-410; real meaning of, and of individual independence, 410 ff.; question of how a democratic nation can contribute to increase of, 413.

Industrial corporations, regulation, of, 378-379. See Corporations.

Industrial legislation, class discrimination in, 191.

Inheritance tax, a graduated, 381-385.

Inheritors of fortunes, 204, 382-384.

Initiative, movement in favor of, in state governments, 320.

Insane asylums, improvement of, as a function of the state, 345.

Institutional reform, 315 ff.

Insurance companies, attempted regulation of, by various state governments, 355.

Internal improvements, the Whig policy of, 66; failure of, 67-68.

International relations of European states, 254-264. See England, France, Germany, and Russia.

International socialism, a mistake, 210-211.

International system, a stable American, 300 ff.; cooeperation of Latin-American states and Mexico in, 300-303; place to be held by Canada in, 303-306; systematic effort to establish, a plain and inevitable consequence of the democratic national principle, 307; peace in an, 311-312.

Inter-state commerce, question of state or Federal control of, 351-357; policy to be followed by central government toward, 357-368.

Inter-state Commerce Law, 112-113; an example of class legislation, 191.

Isolation, loss to an individual or a nation from, far more than the gain, 263-264; comparative nature of, of United States, 310-311; religious sanctity given to tradition of, of United States, 313.