The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-08-30
JEFFERSON AND THE CONSENT OF
THE GOVERNED.

Hon. William Dudley Foulke reproves the
Sentinel for its inaccurate report of his
recent speech in this city. That paper re-
ported him as saying:
The statement that "all governments de-
rive their just powers from the consent
of the governed" is not true and never has
been. If II were true IL would result in
anarchy. The Declaration of independence
was never intended to be followed to the
letter; IT is only an ideal toward which
governments are supposed to strive, but
never to reach.
Mr.. Foulke declines to be put in the
position of attacking the doctrine or the
right of self-government. He was arguing
in the declaration either as a statement of
existing fact or unqualified political truth.
He showed. what everybody on a little re-
Election must admit, that there must be in
every government a great number of indi-
viduals and some entire classes who do
rot consent to the laws. and that II such
universal consent prevailed there would
be no need of government at all. "As an
expression of an existing fact" he said,
>"the statement that government derives its
J11k W AtOAA ~ AAoC - tHC 6Of-
erned was not true at the time Jefferson
wrote it, nor has it ever been true at any
moment since that time Instead o. being
intended as q statement of fact or q poiit-
ical axiom. he said, it was intended to
represent an ideal towards which the Ma
practicable. The point of his argument and
illustrations was that the statement could
not have a literal Interpretation, and in
corroboration of this view he quoted Mr..
Lincoln as saying in a speech delivered at
Springfield. ILL.,. on June rs. 1857:
The trainers of the Declaration of In
dependence did not mean to assert the OBJ
vious untruth that all were then actually
enjoying equality, nor yet that they were
about to confer 1t Immediately upon them.
In fact. they had no power to confer such 4
boon. They meant simply to declare the
right. so that the enforcement of ii might
follow as fast as circumstances should per-
NIT. They meant to set up a standard
maxim for free society, which should be
familiar to all and revered by al: con-
stantly looked TO, constantly labored for,
and even though never perfectly attained,
constantly Appropriated, and thereby con-
stantly spreading and deepening its infiu-
ence and augmenting the happiness an
value of life to all people. of all colors,
everywhere.
To fairly interpret the Declaration of In
dependence one must remember that IL was
c-af ed as a political proclamation, repre-
| senting the spirit of the times. and was in
tended. by every device of forcible state
ment and skiilful expression. to justify the
cause of the colonists before the world.
Jefferson himself said in a letter to Henry
Lee, written in 1875, that the Declaration
was intended as IAN appeal to the tribunal
| of the world" He added:
This was the object of the Declaration of
Independence. Not to find out new prin-
ciples or new arguments. never before
thought of, not merely to say things which
had never been said before; but to place
before mankind the common sense of the
subject in terms so plain and firm as 10
command assent and TO justify ourselves
in the independent stand we We're COM
PEELED to take. Neither aiming at original
ity Of principle or sentiment. nor yet copied
from any particular and previous writing,
IL was intended to be an expression of the
American mind. and To give to that ex.
preston the proper tone and spirit called
for by the occasion.
From this II is evident tina when Jeffer-
son drafted the Declaration he was fan
more solicitous about making a strong in
dictment of George III than he was about
enunciating new political principles. As a
matter of fact, he believed in the rule OF
the majority. and in the compulsory sub.
mission of the minority thereto, ii
compulsion was necessary. In all hi.
voluminousw writings outside OF the Declare.
ton of Independence there is no allusior
to the doctrine Of the consent of the gov,
erned. He does. however. repeatedly assert
the doctrine Of majority rule. His writing,