Evening star., 1937-08-26
Misuse of Term "American
Theory of Government
To the Editor Of The Star:

TO the Editor OF The Star:
I take up my pen in reflection on the
column In The Star Monday, August 23,
written by Dorothy Thompson. First, I
would like to compliment her on the
astuteness shown in seeing the issue in
future politics between majority rule
without limitation and the constitutional
rule OF the Majority, with minority rights
preserved. She referred to Mr.. Roose.
velt's Roanoke Island speech.
But would like to point out an objec-
tion to her use OF the term american
theory OF government" She uses the
Federallst theory as synonymous with
the American theory. This Is not the
case. 1t never was the true case. It
Is as absurd to say that either the
Democratic party's ideas or the Repub-
lcan party's ideas on government Is the
American idea. The American theory of
government is, and should be, the theory
that Is IN vogue at any particular time.
1t Is not theory generated by the cone
dltionS and the schools OF thought Of any
one particular time, no matter how far
back In history we 60. We do not think
today In terms used by the GermAnic
tribes that conquered Rome, nor In the
terms OF the medieval Crusaders who
fought the Turks. nor yet in the terms
OF the scientists and artists OF the
Renaissance who conquered ignorance
and mental stagnation. It IL quite rs
unnecessary for us to think In 1927 In
the terms OF 1889 or OF any other early
period.
I say 1t never was the true case that
the Federalist theory and the American
knows anything Of American history
knows these facts. First, the franchise
1t the period OF the adoption OF the Con-
stitutlon was very limited. Only the
property owners, or those with income
quallf1cations. could vote. This excluded
great numbers Of workers. Second, these
workers were not interested in the Feder-
alist Constitution. for they recognized 1t
as safeguard Tor privilege and property,
even At that time. Third, the great
liberals OF the time indeed men who had
led America during the Revolution such
as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson,
were opposed to the Federalist Constitu-
tlon because they, too. recognized 1t as
protective agency for privilege. Fourth.
there WAS great opposition to the Fed
eralist Constitution among those who did
AioAu tlic 41dLCIllSc HI Tie llIne. IL is we'll
known that some Of the most driving and
dirty politics Of American history we're
enacted by the Federalist leaders In their
two-year drive, from 1887 to 1889, when
1t finally passed. by bare matorities, a
sumcient number Of States to 10 into
effect. In no State was there an over
Whelm1ng majority, and it is true that
a combination of the ma jorities of all
the States little more than equaled the
minorties. These minorities, thrown in
with dissenting non-voters outnumbered
the pro-Constitution party. The anti
Federalists were about as strong as the
Federalists, though they had lost each
respective State. These are not roman
tic dreams about the founding of the
Constitution and our great country. but
they are facts. The Federalist Constitu.
ton did not have majority support even
in its infancy.
Even in 1859, then, the Federalist
theory was not necessarily the American
theory. 1t Is very doubtful If a majority
of eighteenth century Americans ad.
hered to that theory. Certainly it was
not nearly SO popular as many New Deal
provisions that have been blocked by
comparatively small minority This is
beside the point, however. The point re-
mains that no school Of thought in Amer
1can history has ever created anything
more than a purely temporary "Ameri-
can theory OF government.
IRA MOlsELLE,