# Our Common Country/Chapter 17

America uncovers in observance of the 133rd anniversary of the birthday of the nation. I do not say the birthday of American freedom, which we celebrate variously, though always patriotically, on July 4, in reverence for the Declaration of Independence, but this day is the anniversary of the literal birthday of our American nation.
I can never forget that, in the beginning, independence was one thing and nationality quite another. The Declaration of Independence was the proclamation of the representatives of the colonies, animated by a common purpose and aroused by a common oppression. They were ​brought into a comradeship of suffering, privation and war, and the magnificent Declaration of Independence was the bold, clear statement of human rights by an association of fearless men who knew they were speaking for liberty. It might have been the declaration of any people anywhere who had equal reasons and like aspirations, because it is the most comprehensive bill of rights in all the annals of civilized government. Under the Declaration, the colonies fought for freedom, and then in the chaos of victory they turned to nationality as the necessary means of its preservation. In short, freedom inspired and nationality was invoked in order to preserve.
We take it all so much as a matter of course now, that we little appreciate the marvel of the beginning. One may well wonder that the colonists succeeded in their warfare for independence, because they were battling against the command​ing power of the Old World. They were little prepared, they were lacking in resources and they knew nothing of concord, except in the universal desire for freedom. It is well to remember that the colonies were not imbued with any thought of a common purpose except for freedom itself. There was no distinctly American spirit which was common to them all. They were strung along the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and widely separated by miles of distance and by leagues of primeval forests and they were much more separated by the diversity of the origin of their population, by differences in religion, in ideals and manners of life. The whole thought of their association was that of an offensive and defensive alliance against foreign aggression, and there was no suggestion of a national feeling or aspiration before, during or immediately following the successful War for Independence.
​Indeed, there were conflicting interests of sections and states, there were wide diversities of opinion, especially with respect to the merits of royalism and democracy, there were envies and jealousies, there were differences of methods and varieties of practises—all making a situation in which it was difficult to commit the free colonies to anything more than the futile articles of confederation.
Almost a decade passed before the dream of erecting upon this new continent a great and strong nation "dedicated to liberty" became a compelling vision, and forced its way upon the waking, active hours of the more progressive and thoughtful men of the colonies. It is even true that a fundamental federal law was not in contemplation by most of the delegates who assembled in the first convention, and many of those who attended would not have been present had they known that such a work was to be under​taken. Surely a supreme federal government was not in the minds of a majority of the delegates. In that convention were men of every type of mind. There were Puritan and Cavalier, Quaker and atheist, autocrat and peasant, Yankee and slave-holder. Among them there were, even as there are now, the extremists who favored autocracy or the commune. Under other names, but easily identified with present-day prototypes, they had the reactionary, Bolshevik, Socialist, Republican, Democrat, Prohibitionist, Liberal and what-not.
It was difficult timber out of which to erect the enduring temple of the Republic, and I think it worth our while to recall this to lead us to greater appreciation. I can well believe that the hand of destiny must have directed them; and the supreme accomplishment was wrought because God Himself had a purpose to serve in the making of the new Republic.
​The formulated work of the convention of 1787 was not contribution, even in fundamentals, of one mind. The best men in the colonies were among the delegates, and it is inspiring to recall that the president of the convention was George Washington. It is equally pleasing to note that this great man, born to wealth and position, allied by blood to the titled aristocracy of England, said to be the richest American of his time, commander-in-chief of a victorious army which idolized him, who had put resolutely away the offer of a crown offered by men who could have delivered it, stood steadfastly in this convention, as always, for a republican form of government.
The debates of the constitutional convention show that every known form of government had its advocates; that every proposition presented was discussed, amended, revised and reviewed, again and again. The result was in every instance, ​compromise or conviction, as must be the case when the collective judgment and not the individual will is sought.
There were many times when it seemed that the convention must adjourn in impotence. The strain upon mental and physical and nervous energies was exhausting. Public feeling ran high and fear of a war between the colonies was justifiable. It was the venerable Franklin, sage and patriot, who at a critical time, asked the convention to cease from its labors, lay aside its differences, and reverently and trustfully invoke the Divine guidance. And I am one who firmly believes that that prayer was answered.
Out of this chaos of opinion, out of this rivalry and conflict, out of this ferment of New World liberty, came the great experiment, the first written constitution evolved in the history of the world. It was not the product of any one mind. I have ​always thought Hamilton to have been the inspiring genius, though Madison contributed very largely, and Franklin's wisdom was never ignored. Probably no conclusion could ever have been reached without the compelling efforts of Washington. It was not the matching of minds except in the spirited debate. Such a document was of necessity the result of a meeting of minds in unselfish, conscientious and truly patriotic purposes. I believe such a meeting of minds in high purpose to be the most effective agency possible in the conduct of public affairs.
It has been said by those who disparage our government that our Constitution contains nothing new fundamentally. That might be said of the Sermon on the Mount; it might be said, and truthfully, of the components of any plan, or theory or practise in government, or science or religion. But in combination, in essence and results it was new.
​William Pitt said of the American Constitution: "It will be the wonder and admiration of all future generations and the model of all future constitutions."
Gladstone said: "It is the greatest piece of work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."
James Bryce, the most distinguished and unprejudiced commentator upon the Constitution said: "History shows few instruments which in so few words lay down equally momentous rules on a vast range of matters of the highest importance and complexity." And for illustration, he observes that our Federal Constitution with its amendments may be read aloud in twenty-three minutes; that it is only about half as long as Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians—and only one-fortieth part as long as the Irish land act of 1881.
It was Pitt who spoke with the spirit of prophecy, for our Constitution in essen​tials has been the model for every constitution formulated by civilized peoples since its enactment, and every government but our own has materially changed in form since ours was established by the adoption of the Constitution of 1787.
And what did this Constitution do? It provided a practical, workable, popular, central government upon the representative plan, while reserving to the people in the states and their political subdivisions the control of their local affairs. It provided a government of checks and balances, which made the will of the majority determinable and effective, but protected the rights of the minority.
It was written in six months to meet an impending crisis, and it was written to provide a central government for the people of thirteen scattered colonies, having a total population smaller than now lives within the confines of several of our cities, and yet it was so soundly conceived ​and so masterfully written that its provisions fully meet the actual governmental needs of a hundred and twenty millions of people, as well as the conditions which are revealed in an experience of a hundred and thirty-three years—and, I believe, of all the years to come.
It provides for a free government of free men. Under it there is freedom of thought and expression, freedom of worship, freedom of action within the law and the rights of others.
Under it there is no reason for revolt, no necessity for resort to violence. Any cause which can enlist a majority of the free, untrammelled electors of this land may, under the Constitution, win its dominance. The will of the people, expressed at the ballot boxes of the Republic, can change our government, as well as its policies, may even abolish the Constitution itself.
​This fact should make us even less tolerant of the lawless men who seek to establish, by threat or violence, the rule of minorities or of classes, which inevitably becomes autocracy or anarchy.
The patriots of 1787 devised a government to do the things so wonderfully and graphically expressed in the preamble:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillitiy, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
Can any of you, my friends, conceive a clearer statement of a noble purpose? Can you suggest the insertion or elision of a word or phrase which would improve it; can any one name a single ideal of popular government which is not covered by ​its beautifully concise, but comprehensive, phraseology?
And the constitutional provisions are as clearly stated and as patriotically conceived. Let us look for a moment into the fundamentals of our Constitution.
It provides for three departments of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial—the legislative to make the laws, the executive to administer and enforce them, the judicial to interpret and construe them.
The legislative power was vested in Congress, and the provisions relating to Congress are wonderful in the far-seeing wisdom of the constitution-writers. It was provided that Congress was to be composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The latter to be the popular body; its members to be elected by the people every two years. They were to be chosen from districts erected upon the basis of total population. This ​was intended to give equality of representation throughout the country. These districts, under the proposed apportionment, were to be small enough so as to have only one or few dominant interests; this would bring all interests under consideration in the house. The members were to be elected for two years—thus giving the electors frequent opportunity of selecting their representatives and sending them with fresh mandates from the people.
The Senate was intended to be the deliberative body—the check and brake upon the wheels of legislation. Its members were to be elected from the state by the legislatures thereof and for a term of six years. This was to give stability to their positions and remove them from the influence of temporary excitement. As the members of the house came from districts based on population giving the larger states or communities a preponder​ance of power and strength in that body, the rights of the minority—and the smaller states—were safeguarded by a provision that every state should be entitled to two members of the Senate. Could anything be fairer or more practical than these provisions? Under them we had in the most practical form the so-called modern idea of the initiative, referendum and recall. Any district through its representative could initiate a bill; the right of petition to Congress was established. That gave the initiative. The election of a new Congress every two years gave an opportunity for the referendum and recall.
And it worked. No proposed legislative matter having the support of any considerable minority of electors ever failed of introduction or consideration by Congress.
The "Founding Fathers" were determined to maintain the independence of ​action of the three departments of government. They provided that the president should be elected by persons appointed as electors by the states, but they provided also that no member of Congress or officer of the government should be an elector.
They provided that the president should have the veto over the acts of Congress—but they provided that Congress, by a two-thirds vote, could nullify his veto.
In the constitutional convention it was proposed that the judiciary should be appointed by the Senate—but it was held that this would place the judges under obligations to the Senate. Then it was proposed that they should be appointed by the president, and it was held that this would make the judges subservient to the executive and give him power to override the courts and set aside the will of the people as expressed in law. And so the con​vention provided that the judges should be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.
At first the power to make treaties with other governments was proposed to be conferred upon the Senate, but it was agreed finally that there should be a division of responsibility and power. And despite the construction placed upon the language of this provision, I ask your attention to its statement: "He (the president) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." Can any American wonder that members of the Senate, in complying with their solemn oath of office, insisted upon safeguarding America when the president proposed to submerge our nationality in a super-government of the world?
Looking back now, it is easy to understand that the fathers of the Republic had ​no reasonable conception of the mighty possibilities in its development, nor did they begin to appreciate the magnitude of the great thing they accomplished in writing the fundamental law, and yet somehow a sense of the tremendous importance must have been upon them. Bancroft wrote: "The members were awestruck at the result of their councils. The Constitution was a nobler work than they had believed it possible to devise."
Our nation is one and one-third centuries old, which is but a very brief period in the story of mankind. There are some rare instances in which three generations in one family stretch from the immortal beginning to the wonderful now. I have, myself, in these later years, met great-grandchildren of those who participated in the making of the Constitution, yet in that stretch of time we have grown to be the greatest Republic on the face of the earth, and the work which the fathers did ​in their day still lives in full force as the fundamental law of the oldest living Republic.
This makes it easy to understand why the constitution-makers did not appreciate the greatness of their achievement. They stood too close for full realization, but we may contemplate it to-day in the revealing light of history and from the view-point of American accomplishments. One by one European autocracies have yielded, until, in the last great onrush of democracy, practically all nations have been engulfed, even steadfast and solid Britain has shaken off the control which her aristocracy wielded for centuries, and has raised her House of Commons to practically unrestricted authority.
America alone among the great nations of the world has undergone no change or vicissitude which in itself has not proved to be strengthening, both materially and spiritually. An anchor our Constitution ​has been called, but if it be so regarded it can not be held a rigid, immovable thing, but rather as a sheet anchor, serving only to keep the great ship safe and steady on her course; because there is nothing inelastic in our basic law. Almost immediately the "Bill of Rights" for men was added and now, by the votes of men, the yet more striking "Bill of Rights" for women has been adopted.
During all these years the Constitution has never failed America and despite heedless assertions to the contrary which occasionally reach our ears, America has never failed the world. Not only has she afforded a safe refuge and unrestricted opportunity to oppressed beings everywhere, but by showing that "liberty with law is fire on the hearth, but liberty without law is fire on the floor," she has proved democracy itself. Far more by force of example than by force of arms, she has shattered the idols of monarchy ​and brought thrones crashing to the ground. And now, as ever before when distracted peoples are in the throes of a rebirth of nations, she stands ready, and let us hope, will be in a position, through earnest cooperation of all branches of our government, to lend a helping hand. To "America First," as pledged by the individual, I would add simply as addressed to the nation, "To thine own self be true."
Under the Constitution we have prospered and developed; under the Constitution we have kept alive the watch-fires of freedom and have maintained the open door of liberty. Under the Constitution we have seen millions of people, self-governed, self-controlled, work out their destiny in ordered liberty. Under the Constitution we have worshiped God in accordance with conscience without hindrance, and we have seen the reins of power transferred from hand to hand, in bloodless revolution, at the peoples' behest.
​Under the Constitution we have welcomed the oppressed or unfortunate of every land, and shared with those who desired and deserved our heritage and citizenship.
Under our Constitution, with the amendments so readily made when major settlement is evoked, every man and every woman may have an equal voice and vote in the government which he helps establish, maintain and direct. Under it the rights of each and all are guaranteed. Every citizen is made, so far as our imperfect human nature permits, safe in his person, his property, his rights of every kind.
No honest man, who loves his kind, can ask more than that. When he does not receive that, the fault is all or partly his own, and flows not from failure of plan of government, but from failure of performance.
We date our independence to the mem​orably July day in 1776 when the bell of Independence Hall "rang out liberty" to all the peoples of the world. I know that the confederation of colonies was the great, the essential step toward the consolidation of victories of the Revolution, but it was the ratification of the inspired Constitution of 1787 that first established us as a nation. I want it to abide; I want it to impel us onward; I want the Republic for which it was conceived; and I want the Republic governed in America, under the Constitution.