Download The American and French Declarations of Rights: A Comparative Analysis and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
340 THE OPEN COURT. .
He is said to have declared the Ninth Symphony to be a mis-
take, and even to have spoken of working it over, at least of never
repeating the experiment : we need not discuss the credibility of this
tradition or lay any weight upon it. On the other hand we may
regret that Beethoven did not carry out the plan, which had been
earlier suggested, of providing^ a commentary to his own works.
Then we could have expected an authentic critique of the Ninth
Symphony by the author himself. So we must confine ourselves
to the facts. We know that he planned a tenth symphony, that
death intervened to prevent its completion and that little or nothing
is to be gathered from meager sketches. But instrumental com-
positions like the last great string quartette were produced after the
Ninth Symphony, and this alone may well suffice to put to rest all
misunderstanding.
At a memorable Academy meeting on May 7 , 1824, three move-
ments of the Missa solemms and the Ninth Symphony were pro-
duced for the first time.^ The^ master^ was present,^ stone deaf. He
heard not a sound of the wonderful notes which there came to life
at his bidding; he heard not a sound of the thundering applause
with which the inspired audience^ greeted him.^ He stood with his
back to the public until Caroline Unger, one of the soloists who took
part in the production, motioned to him to turn around. Then he
saw how all^ were applauding^ and^ nodding^ to^ him. What a moment
this must have been, and how indelibly impressed upon every one
present! As he stood there in the concert hall facing the crowd of
people, so in^ his^ life^ and^ work^ he^ stood^ in^ relation^ to^ the world
alone and unapproachable, and yet its affectionate benefactor.
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
BY A. V. C. P. HUIZINGA.
THE statement^ in^ the^ Declaration^ of^ Independence^ which^ asserts
"All men are created equal," has been the subject of so much
discussion that Jefferson himself, who drew up this American his-
torical document, could hardly realize the full scope, or the various
interpretations of this assertion. It is mostly misunderstood now,
and therefore worth our while to review shortly its meaning in the
light of its historical occurrence.
For a right understanding of the document, it is well to bear
in mind that in the much vaunted political theories of "Natural
Rights" in those days is^ inherent^ the^ right^ of^ revolution,^ an under-
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 341
taking which the American colonies at that time had taken in hand
with much success. The colonies were anxious to justify the fact
of this achievement against King George, for nations not less than
individuals feel the necessity to justify their acts, because nations
as well as individuals are under moral law. Consequently they are
led to justify their acts before the world,- and to themselves before
God. Hence individuals and nations give always in important deci-
sions an account of the circumstances and reasons which prompt
their acts, setting forth their views in justification of the same.
Such an account is the Declaration of Independence. It does
not apologize, but justifies the momentous act taken by the colonies
in breaking away from King George, and adduces as the justifying
principle of the action : "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form be-
comes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foun^
dation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Hap-
piness."
It is plain at first sight that the government becomes secondary
in authority because of the fact which is taken for granted, the self-
evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by
their Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. In fact, the government exists only to secure
these rights, but if, and whenever the government fails to do this,
it thereby forfeits its right to be, which is the case of British author-
ity, as is made apparent in the long list of enumerated abuses. It
is of interest to note that the Declaration asserts : the government
must rest upon the consent of the governed. Thereby the people
were declared sovereign, and taxation without representation be-
came impossible. But it should be made clear in this connection
that Rousseau, who coined the phrase "the sovereign people" in his
Contrat Social, does nowhere argue for a declaration of individual
rights, with which the state shall not interfere. This is characteristic
of the way in which the American people incorporated these prin-
ciples in a political program with its provisions of "checks and
balances" against usurpations of the government against the indi-
vidual. John Adams maintained the power of the government,
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 343
remains the general^ will.^ It^ is^ readily^ seen,^ how mob^ rule^ might
easily result from such a theoretic, artificial conception of the general
will of the people, then, this absolute power unchecked by rule or
law, it is apparent^ again^ how^ the^ wildest^ excesses^ became^ possible.
Even the majority rule as bound by law under stress of circum-
stances or popular clamor will override legal restraints in behalf
of individual or community. It is everywhere and forever difficult
to learn that liberty cannot exist without respect for law and order.
A more fitting object lesson, therefore, could not well be found than (^) that placed over the courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts
"Obedience to law is liberty." But to assert similarity to any extent
between the principles manifest in the spirit of the French Revolu-
tion of 1789 and the spirit of 1779 in America, even by almost identical
wording in the "Declaration des droits de fhomme et du citoyen"
and the "Declaration of Independence" is like putting Rousseau's
confessions by the side of those of^ Augustine.^ Even^ identical
declarations run of necessity apart in their bearing upon, and
interpretation by, different people. And how great is not the differ-
ence between revolutionary^ France^ formulating^ its^ extreme^ theories
against the oppressive ancien regime, and the American colonies
resisting the despotic demands of King George upon his unrepre-
sented subjects across the sea. In fact, the only thing in common
in these movements, except the wording of the official documents
the "Declaration of Independence" and "La declaration des droits
de I'homme et du citoyen"—is their assertion of rights against oppressive government.
The similarity in wording is readily understood when we re-
member that, in the discussions of the Constituent Assembly which
drew up the French^ Declaration^ of^ the Rights^ of^ Man^ and of^ the
Citizen, reference was had constantly to the American Declaration
of Independence. Rabaut de St. Etienne, the able Protestant min-
ister who took an active part in these discussions, declares explicitly
that the Declaration and Bills of Right had served them as a
model for the French Declaration. It is therefore not true to fact
when the French assert that their declaration rests wholly upon
French antecedents, notably upon the writings of J. J. Rousseau.
It is still farther from the truth when Americans declare their
Declaration of Independence to rest upon the principles of the
French Revolution with Rousseau (notably his Discours sur I'iuc-
galite and Contrat Social) and other political writers as precursors.
It is false to assert that "the French gave shape to the thought
which America was to work out in actual practice." or that Dumont's
344 THE OPEN COURT.
story of "Freedom and Equality" passed over into our Declaration
of Independence. Apart from the explicit testimony that the Amer-
ican documents were considered and served as model during the
discussions held for the purpose of drawing up the Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the significant fact remains
that the American Declaration antedates the similarly worded docu-
ment of the French by thirteen years. George Mason drew up the
Bill of Rights of Virginia June 12, 1776; Thomas Jefferson, the
Declaration of Independence officially July 4, 1776 ; but the com-
mittee of five of the Constituent Assembly composed the Declaration
of the (^) Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, and it was pre- fixed to the Constitution of 1791.
Besides, it was Franklin who urged Mirabeau, one of the com-
mittee of five, to prepare the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to
publish the address "Considerations on the order of Cincinnatus"
four years before the French Declaration of Rights ; and one year
before this event Mirabeau drew up a Declaration of Rights for the
patriots of Holland, "Address to the Batavians Concerning the
Stadtholdership," in which he enumerates the right to which the
people are entitled as men. Such influence as is exercised has come
from the American side upon the French ; but, then, rather limited
to the framing of the Declaration than involving a real influence
upon the French Revolution. But certainly there was no French
fire kindled in the American struggle for Independence.
The great German jurist Stahl declares in Philosophie des
Rechts:
"The French Constituent Assembly was entranced with the
philosophical procedure of North America and imitated it with the
greatest exaggeration. While disclaiming any intention of draw-
ing up metaphysical and not practical rights, hollow and erroneous
deductions from Natural Law were placed at the head of the Dec-
laration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."
Stronger still is the case put in recent years by Professor
Jellinek, who affirms in his Die Erklarung der Menschen- und
Biirgerrechte that the French Declaration of the Rights of Man is
a literal transcription of clauses contained in the Bills of Rights
of the American States. Perhaps this position is somewhat ex-
treme, but Dr. Scherger's argument against it in The Evolution of
Modem Liberty, that the long discussion preceding the draft of the
French declaration precludes^ such^ a^ supposition,^ does^ not^ seem
weighty, inasmuch as precisely the formal rendering of public docu-
ments is of the highest importance. Comparison of, and selection
346 THE OPEN COURT.
Milton, Sidney, Locke, and others held these views. Did not R. H.
Lee charge Jefferson with copying the substance of the Declaration
from Locke? But although these views were known and held be-
fore, they had no general acceptance. In France and in America,
however, under the stress of circumstances to fulfil the respective
needs, these views were taken up and formulated in the declarations.
The doctrines in their bearing fit each case, and are interpreted and
used according to the exigencies of the respective movements, which
are manifestly wholly unlike. Thereby the declarations become in
regard to these movements merely the occasion in the struggle. And
it is natural that a people risen in frenzy against agelong oppression,
and quite another type of people determined to resist infringement
upon their liberties, read and understand even the selfsame declara-
tion quite^ differently.
The doctrines contained in the declarations are indeed expres-
sive of the American spirit, with French theoretic exaggeration,
as Stahl observes, they^ become^ a metaphysical battleax to cut down
radically the last vestiges of the hated ancien regime.
The Declaration of Independence could be an expression of
the American^ spirit^ because^ in^ America^ the^ social^ and^ economic
conditions were much alike, there was no caste or native nobility,
and above all there were no feudal customs or traditions. When
Jefferson drew up the now familiar^ doctrines of^ human^ equality,
of the natural and inalienable rights of man, and the guarantee of
these rights as the sole ground of government, and the right and
duty (^) of revolution when these rights were subverted—"The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants,"—he voiced truly the American spirit of his time.
Jefferson himself said well, in answer to the charge of Picker-
ing and Adams that the substance of the Declaration had been
"hackneyed in Congress for two years before": "Neither aiming at
originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any par-
ticular previous writings, it was intended to be an expression^ of
the American mind and to give that expression the proper tone and
spirit called forth by the occasion."
The constitution of the LT^ nited^ Colonies of^ Windsor,^ Hartford,
and Wethersfield, drawn up in 1639, was based already upon the
sovereignty of the people. Thomas Hooker preached the year
before a sermon in Hartford in which he declared "that the choice
of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's allowance,"
that the people have power^ "to set bounds^ and^ limitations^ of^ the
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 347
power and place unto which they call them" (Coll. Conn. Historical
Society, I, p. 20).
The political principles then were not new, nor did they origi-
nate upon American soil, but they were embodied here in a political
program, because there was a setting for them here to realize them
when occasion called them forth. They were not only hurled in a
defiant, assertive mood against the rich Tories and arrogant officials
sent from England to live off the colonies, they were also believed
in as practical principles of government. Then again the greater
part of the English settlers here were Puritans, who were Indepen-
dents in England. The Mayflower carried Pilgrim fathers to these
shores, who before had tasted exile from England in Holland.
James I and Charles I persecuted these Independents because they
"bred liberal views." Would not their remembered experiences
strengthen these liberal convictions, when on these far shores that
self-same arrogant autocratic royalty and servile episcopacy against
which they or their forbears had stood out years ago, tried again
to misrule them by divine right! Then the Puritan tenet appeared
indeed natural "that kings are but ministers of the commonwealth,
and that they have no more authority than what is given them by
the people."
James I,^ however,^ proclaimed^ from^ the^ throne^ in^1609 his doc-
trine of the divine right of kings as follows
"God hath power to create or destroy, to make or unmake at
His pleasure, to give life or send death ; and to God both body and
soul are due. And the like power have kings : they make and un-
make their subjects like men of chess: a power to take a bishop or
a knight, and to cry up or down any of their subjects as they do
their money."
The Anglican Church preached these doctrines from the pulpit.
Bishop Overall's Convocation Book of 1606 attacks fiercely the doc-
trine that "all civil power, jurisdiction, and authority were first de-
rived from the people and disordered multitude, or either is orig-
inally still in them, or else deduced by their consent naturally from
them ; and is not God's ordinance originally descending from Him
and depending upon Him." The Canons of June, 1640, affirmed
that the most high and sacred order of kings is of divine right,
being the ordinance of God Himself, founded in the prime laws of
nature and revelation, by which supreme power over all persons
civil and ecclesiastical is given them."
Who wonders still that against this monstrous thing of pseudo-
Christianity, wantonly torn from^ the^ historical^ Church^ of^ Rome,
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 349
stood firmly upon the principles of the Declaration. "The Fathers,"
said he, "did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size,
intelligence, moral development, or social capacity." They did mean
"all men are equal in the possession of certain inalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The
founders of the republic then meant merely "to declare the right
so that enforcement might follow as soon as circumstances should
permit." It shows the sagacity of that great president that the
ideal stated must be practically treated in its application,—not, in
French fashion, theoretically carried out.
That he was able to battle for it with unwavering determination
once the time was ripe for its realization shows his attitude during
the Civil War. In singular contrast with the French theorists who
carried the ideas to their logical and impossible extremes, defeating
their own end, while they created abhorrent conditions which made
the very name of "natural rights" odious, stands the practical ad-
vocacy of^ certain^ rights^ by the^ Americans.^ They were denied their
rights as English subjects, therefore they appealed to their rights
as men. What the law of the land denied them, they demanded
according to natural rights and the law of nature. Hence they never
entered upon a violent program to carry out these rights of man.
On the strength of them they asked some very concrete popular
rights, such as they knew were granted English subjects in the
Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus act, the Bill of Rights of 1689,
and others. In the American Bills of Rights the people declare for
concrete rights, as trial by Jury, freedom of speech and of the press,
freedom of elections, security against excessive fines, cruel and
unusual punishments, general warrants, and others. These concrete
rights are often even copied verbatim from the Magna Charta and
English Bill of Rights, but the demands for them are based, on the
abstract doctrines of natural rights. Hence they are preceded by
the statements of abstract principles : the natural freedom and equal-
ity of men, the purpose of the government, the sovereignty of the
people, the separation of powers, etc. But these principles were not
asserted as a new political^ program:^ they were, in the words of
Lincoln, the stated basal principles on which concrete rights were
to be enforced, "as soon as circumstances should permit." On the
other hand, the French were enamored of the bare, abstract ideas
which they proclaimed, and went to excesses which made not only
Burke rail against their "paltry, blurred shreds of paper about the
Rights of Man," but which incurred also the opposition of Bentham,
Austin, and Maine.
350 %^ THE OPEN COURT.
The foregoing discussion tries to explain that the American
Declaration means precisely what it says when declaring, "All men
are created equal,"^ and^ that^ it^ does^ not^ mean^ "All^ men^ are^ equal
before the law"—as is generally believed. This is a legal twist of
the philosophical doctrine, soon^ after^ already^ in^ evidence^ in^ some^ of
the "Bills^ of^ Rights"^ of^ the^ States.
So the Florida Declaration of Rights: "All men shall be equal
before the law."
The Rhode Island Constitution: "All laws shall be made for
the good of the whole."
The Connecticut Constitution : "All men have equal rights when
they form a social compact."
The South Carolina Constitution: "No person^ shall^ be^ denied
the equal protection^ of^ the^ laws."
The Virginia Bill of Rights, antedating the Declaration about
a month, states plainly : "All^ men were by nature^ equally^ free^ and
independent."
The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights renders the slogan of
the struggle four years after the Declaration: "All^ men^ are^ born
free and equal."
The Constitution (^) of New Hampshire retains the logical sequence
in declaring: "All men are born equally^ free^ and^ independent,
therefore, all government^ of^ right^ originates^ from^ the^ people,^ is
founded in consent, and instituted for the general good."
It is apparent that after the event of the Declaration^ has^ passed,
the element of^ law^ becomes^ prominent^ in^ its^ interpretation.^ The
legal mind treats men as under the law, and thinks of 'man as before
the law.' But in the historic struggles,^ both here^ and^ in^ France,^ the
legal notion was not^ uppermost.^ It^ goes^ without^ saying^ that^ legis-
lation was involved ; but, as a matter of historic fact, the asserted
rights to whatever abolishment of old and reenactment^ of^ new^ polit-
ical and legal rights^ they^ led,^ rested^ in^ their^ appeal^ upon^ the^ then
acknowledged "natural rights," which, from Hugo Grotius onward,
had been a household word with^ political^ writers.^ Calhoun^ under-
stood clearly that the^ declaration^ "all^ men^ are^ created^ equal"^ was
an abstract principle of philosophic rather than political^ significance.
He calls the declaration of^ these^ theories^ as^ universal^ principle
"glittering generalities,"^ but^ he^ does^ not^ fall^ into^ the^ error^ of^ com-
bating the declaration as if it possessed political^ or^ legal^ meaning.
Jefferson's declaration^ appealed^ to^ the^ natural^ right^ of^ man
as created being,^ without^ reference^ to^ the^ law.^ The^ whole^ document
is a declaration that the law should be^ suited^ to^ the^ rightful^ claims
352 THE OPEN COURT.
laws, but did not^ start^ out^ from^ them^ as a basis^ to^ declare^ that^ these
should apply equally to all men. This could only be on the assump-
tion of laws of the people already in force, which laws needed to
be remedied^ in^ their^ application.^ Rather^ it^ is^ evident^ that^ the^ decla-
ration calls for new laws, and such laws as will recognize the prin-
ciples on the strength of^ which^ they^ are^ to be^ made.^ i.^ e., the^ recog-
nition of the humanity of all men, the inalienable rights of man as
a human being. In the light of historic circumstances it seems
stultifying to read "All^ men are^ created^ equal"^ as meaning^ "All^ men
are created equal before the law" when this law is urged on these
self-evident truths, of which in the declaration "All men are created
equal" is the first.^ If^ such^ a^ meaning^ should^ be^ put^ upon^ it,^ would
in the^ careful^ phrasing^ of^ the^ document^ the^ word^ "created"^ not
have been omitted? And would not have been added as in some
Bills of Rights "before^ the^ law"^?
As a matter of fact: All men are not equal before the law, but
they should be. In the circumstances under which the document
was drawn up it should^ then^ have^ been^ rendered:^ "All^ men^ should
be equal^ before^ the^ law,"^ but^ in^ that^ case^ the^ declaration^ would^ not
assert the reason why all men should be thus^ equal^ before^ the law.
The Declaration of^ Independence,^ however,^ shows^ unmistakably^ a
logical reference to the abstract grounds on which the new legislation
should rest. This is what Dr. H. von Hoist^ declared in his well-
known History of the^ Constitution^ of the^ United^ States:
"Neither Congress nor the people relied in the declaration^ upon
any positive right belonging^ either^ to^ the^ individual^ colonies^ or^ to
the colonies as^ a^ whole.^ Rather^ did^ the^ Declaration^ of^ Independence
and the war destroy all existing political jural relations,^ and seek
their moral justification in^ the^ right^ of^ revolution^ inherent^ in^ every
people in extreme^ emergencies."
The legal twist which^ wants^ to^ repudiate^ the^ real^ meaning^ of
the declaration that^ all^ men^ are^ created^ equal,—and^ read^ the^ philo-
sophical doctrine in a legal way to mean:^ "All^ men^ are^ created
equal before the law" is^ evident^ also^ in^ the^ superficial^ but^ very
popular denial^ of^ the^ statement^ that^ all^ men^ are^ created^ equal.^ It
is often^ asserted^ that^ men^ are^ not^ equal,^ because^ out^ of^ millions
of men only a few^ stand^ out^ in^ their^ respective^ careers,^ and^ they
in such marked^ degree^ as^ if^ to^ proclaim^ how^ unlike^ men^ are.^ The
pugilistic strength of Jack Johnson,^ the^ musical^ ability^ of^ Pade-
rewski, the voice of^ Caruso,^ the^ incisive^ logic^ of^ Jonathan^ Edwards,
the oratorial^ powers^ of^ Daniel^ Webster,^ the^ strategy^ of^ Von^ Hinden-
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 353
burg, the comic drollery of Charlie^ Chaplin,^ the inventive^ genius
of Edison, etc., are^ few and^ far^ between^ in^ their^ respective^ careers.
They not only stand unique in their professions but were predestined
to be so from the first, because they were^ so unlike the majority^ of
their rivals.^ In^ the^ race^ for^ preeminence^ men^ are^ too^ unequal.
Moreover, some are born imbeciles, some are physically strong,
others physically weak, some are^ burdened^ with^ the^ curse^ of^ hered-
ity, others are^ blessed^ with^ transmitted^ hereditary^ qualities,^ some
are gifted with talents, a few with genius; most men are mediocre,
while many poor specimens of humanity^ are^ a standing^ refutation
of the declaration^ "All^ men^ are^ created^ equal."
Surely, if we view men in their social setting, in their careers,
their ability, in their relations^ to one^ another,^ it^ is^ going^ off^ on^ a
tangent from^ common^ sense^ to^ maintain^ the^ proposition^ that^ all
men are created equal. But this is precisely what we must not do.
We cannot read a philosophical declaration^ as if^ it^ were a political or legal document. Rodney Thomson, illustrator of the New York Sun, treats
the statement of the Declaration in the^ Pictorial^ Magazine^ of March
7 and March 21, 1915, from^ this^ mistaken,^ popular^ viewpoint.^ He
therefore points out in pictorial representation the incongruities in- volved, and adds a question mark to the statement. A long train
of humans are^ making^ their^ way^ toward^ success.^ Genius^ and^ wealth
lead, poverty,^ physical^ debility,^ prenatal^ influence,^ hereditary^ dis-
ease, inherited weakness, weak mentality, idiocy and congenital de-
formity lag behind in^ the^ race.^ To^ be^ sure,^ other^ things^ being
equal, the^ difference^ of^ means^ to^ an^ end,^ the^ instrumentality^ in^ any
pursuit, must affect the outcome. In that sense,
"The race is to the swift The battle to the strong."
Forsooth, not^ all^ men^ are^ equal^ in^ the^ race^ for^ successful
achievement in society. But whether first in the race or last, we
remain forever human and entitled to life, liberty and happiness.
On the strength^ of^ the^ true^ facts^ of^ the^ first^ cartoon,^ and^ the
mistaken meaning of the declaration that all men are created equal,
the answer by the same artist in the Sun's Pictorial Magazine of
March 21 is even more fallacious.
The country lad, ploughing the field, may indeed aspire to the
occupancy of the White^ House.^ There^ are^ no^ formal,^ legal^ dis-
abilities or^ barriers,^ but^ in^ view^ of^ the^ graphic^ truth^ of^ the^ first
cartoon, the average country lad would^ be rather handicapped in
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 355
among men, liberty in its highest sense, the inner liberty of the soul,
will be less^ banefully^ affected^ by^ untoward^ social^ conditions^ and
circumstances. Christ gets a better chance upon the hearts of men.
With the discussion of this inner liberty of the human soul the
subject does not remain politico-philosophical, but assumes, besides a purely philosophical aspect, a thoroughly theological one as well.
In this sense an actual slave declares himself^ happy^ that he is not
a slave^ like^ his^ emperor.^ With^ this^ regard^ the^ prisoner^ Paul^ ex-
claims with persuasive eloquence : "I would to God, that not only
thou (Agrippa), but also all that hear me this day, were both
almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds" (Acts
xxvi. 29). To this inner liberty refers also Paul's summons in
Galatians v. 1 : "Stand fast therefore in the liberty^ wherewith
Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the
yoke of bondage." This theological view of liberty is closely re-
lated to the metaphysical discussions on the freedom of the will,
and involves also the political and legal views, lying at the root
of them all.
It should therefore be observed here that the American Col-
onists were in this respect much better prepared for the ideas pro-
claimed in the Declaration on the strength of human rights, because
of their religious character and training. They were better prepared
to realize^ the^ meaning^ and^ the^ practical^ application^ of^ the principles
of liberty and equality than the French revolutionists.
Professor Miinsterberg renders this observation well in The
Americans'.
"The social sentiment of equality, although variously tinged
yet virtually the same throughout the United States, in no wise mili-
tates against social distinctions which result from difference of
education, wealth, occupation, and achievement. But it does de-
mand that all these different distinctions shall be considered external
to the real personality. Fundamentally, all Americans are equal.
The statement must not be misunderstood. It by no means coincides
with the religious distinctions that men are equal in the eyes of
God, and it is not to be association with any ethical ideas of life.
Equality before God, and the equal worth of a moral act, whether
done by the greatest or the humblest of God's children, are not
social conceptions ; they are significant only in religious, and not in
social, life. And these two spheres can everywhere be separated.
It can even be said that, as profoundly as religion pervades every-
day life in America, the characteristic principle of equality in the
356 THE OPEN COURT.
social community is wholly independent of the ethics of the New
Testament. It is still less a metaphysical conception. The American
popular mind does not at all sympathize with the philosophical idea
that individuality is only an appearance, and that we are all funda-
mentally one being. The American thinks pluralistically, and brings
to his^ metaphysics^ a^ firm^ belief^ in^ the^ absolute^ significance^ of^ the
individual. And finally, the American principle of equality which
we wish to grasp is not rationally humanitarian ; whether all human
beings are really equal is left out of account. It is a question
actually of this one social community living together in the United
States and having to regulate^ its social^ affairs^ One^ commands
and the other obeys, but with a mutual understanding that this
merely happens to be the most appropriate distribution of functions
under the^ circumstances^ in^ which^ we^ happen^ to^ be^ placed.^ The^ real
man, it is felt, is not affected by this differentiation, and it would
not be worth while either to command^ or^ to obey if^ all men did
not tacitly^ understand^ that^ each^ esteems^ the^ other^ as^ an^ equal.^ The
man who truly sees social equality as a real part of the social con-
tract, will feel toward those above as toward those^ below him."
Because we believe and recognize the principle of liberty, it
does not follow that it can and must^ unqualifiedly^ be accorded to
every one. As strenuous an advocate of liberty as John Stuart
Mill argues the point in his celebrated essay "On Liberty," that one
should never force liberty upon any^ one.^ Liberty^ cannot^ be granted,
it must be taken! The inner liberty must be lived ; the outer liberty
must be appropriated to one's activities. This the French forgot
altogether. Hence^ Fichte's^ pronouncement^ at^ the^ time^ of^ the^ reac-
tion of the revolutionary period in France, regarding the necessity
of an inner freedom to prepare for the political^ outer freedom.
"The enslaved of^ all^ nations^ rouse^ themselves^ at^ the^ shout^ of^ de-
liverance, the patriot's heart throbs higher at the cry ; the poet
dreams of a new golden age ; the philosopher^ looks^ with^ eager
eye for^ the^ solution^ of^ the^ mighty^ problem^ of^ human^ destiny.^ All,
alas! are doomed to disappointment ; and over the grave where
their hopes lie buried,^ a lesson^ of^ fearful^ significance^ stands^ in-
scribed in characters of desolation and blood, proclaiming to all
ages that where the law of liberty^ is^ not^ written^ upon^ the soul,
outward freedom is^ a^ mockery^ and^ unchecked^ power^ a^ curse."
The proposition in the declaration points simply to the human
rights, the just claims of a human^ being^ as^ the^ prime^ concern^ in^ all
political, social and legal regulations in guaranteeing man his free
358 THE OPEN COURT.
It is plainly again a reversal of the logical order, making society
basal ground for (^) the betterment of man. Why must the unequally
born man be equalized by measures of society if not that society
may benefit from men better safeguarded in their human rights.
Against this French viewpoint should be urged the emphatic decla-
ration of Channing, whom the French styled "le Fenelon Ameri- cain"
"He who has never looked through men's outward conditions
to the naked soul and there seen God's image commanding reverence,
is a stranger to the distinctive love of Christianity."
For justification of the claims of liberty and equality we need
higher ground than society or politics can furnish. Bossuet, though
the Catholic Church was then allied with absolute monarchy, brings
this query on religious grounds:
"The murmurs of the poor are just. Wherefore this inequality
of conditions? All arc made of the same clay, and there is no way
in which to justify inequality unless by saying that God has com-
mended the poor to the rich, and assigned to the former the means
of living out of the abundance of the latter, ut fiat equalitas, as Paul
says, 2 Cor. viii. 13-16."
Because men are of the same clay, the extreme inequality in
social conditions has no right of existence, unless, the famous bishop
declares, it be in behalf of the "good works" which the Catholic
Church proclaims in reference to the well-known quoted texts.
France, however, by destroying Protestantism never could be the
soil where the claims of the individual would be adequately recog-
nized. This is one of the fruits of the Reformation and to be re-
membered especially in reference to the conception of liberty.
The declaration "all men are created equal" has as its ethical
corollary the high authority of the Golden Rule. Matthew vii. 12:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them." This ethical principle active in behalf
of the individual in society would transform it gradually from
within. All reforms, political or otherwise, must thus be brought
about, and liberty and equality too must come that way.
Kant seized upon this principle of "man as an end in himself"
as the cornerstone of his system of ethics. "So act that the maxim
of thy action may serve as a general rule," became the formula to
be observed. "You are to treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of any other, always and under any circumstance
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. 359
as an end and never as a means only." This recognition of the indi-
vidual under his rigoristic ethics stamps Kant a Protestant philos-
opher, if he cannot be the philosopher of Protestantism, as Paulsen
(Kant der Philosoph des Protestantismns) , Kaftan (Kant der Philo-
soph des Protestantismus) , and others have proclaimed him. Be-
sides the rejection of all intellectual proofs of religion (Religion
innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft) and his rejection of
the value of pious works for an emphasis upon "the good will" are
opposed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Protes-
tantism which recognizes "the priesthood of all believers" is more
consonant with individualism and democracy than the hierarchy of
the Romish Church and could therefore interpret and better guard
the principles of liberty and equality.
It nevertheless remains strange, that the French should^ so mis-
construe the ideas of liberty and equality, were it not that bred on
revengeful hatred Rousseau's catchwords had inflamed the populace
to the extreme sentiments which made in the outburst of the Revo-
lution the reasonable interpretations impossible. For if Rousseau
did not influence to any considerable extent the political theories,
he certainly had a powerful hold upon the masses, and figures as
a considerable factor in the French upheaval. Many writers of
that period like Voltaire and Turgot do not believe in absolute
equality. Turgot even affirms that inequality of conditions is neces-
sary to stimulate the progress of society, nor would he surrender
individual liberty for the principle of public welfare. He says in
Lcttres sur la tolerance : "We forget that society is made for indi- viduals, that it is instituted only (^) to protect the rights of all in assuring
the accomplishment of all mutual duties." This recognizes the view
that social circumstances, economic conditions, political relations,
and legal^ statutes all should further these human rights, freedom and
equality. They can neither create nor destroy them, but should
serve them in respecting in the citizen, the man, the claims of the
individual as a human being. This personal right is often in danger,
it is especially threatened now under the stress of circumstances of
this gigantic, murderous war, the personal worth of man and his
claims as a human being are absolutely discounted, man is now
only a citizen. Under the guise of patriotic sacrifice the respective
governments enforce upon the people the most exacting and far-
reaching demands, while the people surely are inadequately voiced
in the policies of the combat. But in France to-day Max Nordau protests that it is never the duty of the individual to sacrifice himself
for the community. This is in line with the modern theory of self-
