New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-09
TEACHINGS OF THE FATHERS.

Any historical argument, II 1t is to be more
than paltry trick of the demagogue, must be
true to the facts. Suppression Of some facts or
distortion Of others brands the argument as an
attempt to cheat. If the appeals TO history by
Mr.. Bryan and others are tried by this test,
where does it place them? Here are constant
references to the example and teachings OF the
"Fathers of the Republic as If they were hos
tile to acquisition of further territory. But
the very men who formed the Constitution ac-
Quired by treaty or purchase great share or
the territory which the Union now possesses.
IT is pretended that they would not countenance
acquisition Of the inhabited territory without
consent Of the inhabitants. but the Inhabitants
of Louisiana territory were never consulted.
1t is pretended that the establishment Of gov
eminent over people Of different race and speech
without their assent is contrary TO the prin-
ciples of the Fathers. But the people OF Lousi-
ana territory were Of different race and speech.
and some of them who resisted the authority
Of the United States were suppressed with
armed force by the founders of the Govern
ment.
1t Is favorite notion now to quote the
words Governments are Instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent
"of the governed" as II these embodied a law
of application to all inhabitants alike. But Of
the men who signed the Declaration there were
many who held slaves and these slaves were
governed without their consent The States
which declared their independence were In part
inhabited by Indians. who owned the land be-
fore whites entered 1t, and were not only sub
1ected to government without their consent, but
in spite Of long resistance by most Of them
In the organization of government for the North
west Territory, reaching from the western Dor
der Of Pennsylvania to the Mississippi and be-
yond the same founders Of the United States
asked no consent Of the governed, white or
black or red. French, Spanish, Canadian or
Indian. They established government over vast
tracts Of territory which no citizen OF any or
the States had ever penetrated. Does history
say that In all this the Fathers Of the country
were insincere or false to their principles! On
the contrary, history reads and interprets their
declarations In the light of their acts.
1t was never the intention 10 assert that the
negroes or the savage races must give consent
before just government should be established
over them. The conviction Of the Fathers was
expressed in the suppression and exurpahon
of Indian tribes In the old territory; in the
Seminole War, when possession or Florida was
disputed by men who had never consented to
Spanish. French or American authority; In the
supnressiOn Of resistance wherever II was or
fered by inhabitants Of the vast Louisiana Pur-
chase: in the establishment and maintenance
OF trading ports on Pacific shores, and con-
quest of land from the inhabitants The con-
sent of the governed was not once asked when
territory came into possession Of the United
States in the days Of the Fathers, whether by
treaty. purchase or conquest ror even the con-
sent of the white Spanish or French or Cana
dian inhabitants. Free government was estao-
lshed for the protection Of all their rights, bet
ter protection than they could get anywhere
else, recognizing rights nowhere else protected
recognizing even the rights OF the peaceful IND
fans. but never asking other consent than that
implied by peaceful continuance to live I'm: