« PreviousContinue »
death of Abraham Lincoln." It was Washington who saw the inconsistency, the shame, and the peril of slavery. It was Lincoln who ended it.
Washington was a soldier who fought for the supremacy of just and peaceful laws. Lincoln was a lawyer who invoked the sword to defend a supreme equity. Both men were too great for personal jealousy, too noble for personal revenge, too simple for personal affectation, whether of roughness or of smoothness, too sincere for personal concealment. They had no secrets from their country. They served her with a whole, clean, and glad heart; and they asked no greater reward than her service.
Washington used long words. Lincoln used short words. But they both used words for the same purpose; they both had that kind of eloquence which is simply the result of manly virtue, sober thought, and straight utterance. Through the speeches of both there ran three main ideas:-first, a recognition of the nation's dependence upon Almighty God; second, a strong emphasis upon the necessity of union at the sacrifice of factional differences and interests; third, a steady insistence on moral ideas as the foundation of national great
They were not sceptics, they were believers; they were not clever cynics, they were sober enthusiasts. They were not plaster of Paris saints. Washington had, beneath his quiet exterior, a power of indignation against evil which made him use, at times, language which was not fit to print. Lincoln had a sense of humor which made him, occasionally, tell stories whose latitude exceeded their longitude. But at heart they were both profoundly serious men. "When I die," said Abraham Lincoln, "I want it said of me by those who know me best that I always plucked a thistle and planted a flower where I thought a flower would grow." "If I know my own heart," wrote Washington from Valley Forge, "I could offer myself as a living sacrifice to the butchering enemy, provided that would contribute to the people's ease." I leave it to you if this is not the same keynote struck by these two men.
I am tired of the talk which makes of Lincoln a rude, ungainly, demagogic jester. I am tired of the superficial criticism which makes of Washington a proud, self-satisfied British Squire. (George III. did not think so.) One of these men was great enough to refuse a crown, the other great enough to accept a cross, for his country's sake. Let us learn to recognize in both of these men, embodiments of the spirit of America, of the type of manhood which has made America; and let us, if we love our country, get away from the notion that she is a happy accident! If we do not get away from that notion she will be an unhappy disaster.
What are the ideals which belong to true Americanism? Here are some of them:
To believe that the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are given by God.
To believe that any form of power which tramples on those rights is unjust.
To believe that freedom must be safeguarded by law, and that the end of freedom is fair play for everyone.
To believe that the selfish interests of persons and factions must be subordinated to the welfare of the Commonwealth.
To believe, not in a forced equality of conditions and estates, but in a true equalization of burdens and opportunities, so that every man shall have a fair chance.
To believe that no class is sacred enough to rule the Republic, and no mass great enough to ruin it.
To believe, not that all men are good-for they are notbut that the way to make them better is to trust the whole people.
To believe that the great Democracy should offer to all nations an example of virtue, sobriety, and square dealing.
To believe that Church and State are absolutely independent, and that both need real religion.
These are vital elements in the faith of Americans; and to-night, as guests and grateful friends of the French Republic, we profess our creed, we celebrate our heroic chiefsWashington, who lived to create the Union; Lincoln, who died to save it. We celebrate a republicanism which belongs
neither to the classes nor to the masses, a republicanism which has room for the unselfish aristocrat as well as for the noble democrat, a republicanism which speaks of self-reliance, fair play, common order, self-development, and a country which belongs to all-from Washington to Lincoln, to Cleveland, to Roosevelt, to Taft.
THE AMERICAN UNION AND ITALY
HON. LLOYD C. GRISCOM
S we are all enjoying, for the moment, the hospitality of the Kingdom of Italy, it seems to me that we should not let this occasion pass without some expression of our heartfelt sympathy with a people so recently stricken with the most disastrous calamity which has ever been recorded in the history of nations. I am sure I justly interpret the unanimous sentiment of this assembly when I express to the government, and to the people of Italy, our condolence in this hour of suffering and misery, and our admiration for the courageous manner in which the whole nation has nobly risen to meet the blow.
Italy may well be proud of her brave soldiers and sailors, who are still carrying on the humane work of relief; but above all she is to be congratulated upon having at this moment two sovereigns, who, at the first word of the disaster, proceeded to the scene of horror, and there, by their untiring efforts, brought succor and comfort to the suffering people, and gave an inspiring and illuminating example to the Italian nation, and, indeed, to the whole world. It is not in Italy alone that the humane deeds of King Victor Emmanuel III. and Queen Helena are justly admired and will be permanently remembered.
It requires a leap of memory over well nigh fifty years to recall that once, when we in America had our period of trial and suffering, we received from Italy a sympathy and encouragement which was sorely needed. It takes us to the time
An address delivered, February 12, at a Lincoln Banquet at Rome, Italy.
when Abraham Lincoln was President, and when, for four bitter years civil war devastated the fairest section of the American continent. In Europe generally, the Southern Confederacy received the greatest sympathy, based largely on commercial interests, but in Italy the cause of human liberty and of national unity for which Lincoln stood the champion, was the cause which appealed to the people and received its unwavering support.
The fact is written large in the archives of the Embassy which I have the honor to occupy. One of my most illustrious predecessors, Mr. George P. Marsh, while Minister at Turin, wrote to our Government on June 27, 1861, four days after presenting his letters of credence, that the tenor of Baron Ricasoli's remarks left no room for doubt that his personal sympathies, as well as those of his Government, were entirely on the side of President Lincoln and the constituted authorities of the Union. A year later, he wrote that there was no country in Europe where the cause of the American Union met with so warm and hearty a sympathy as in Italy, and that the Italian population was unanimous in its wishes for the triumph of the Federal cause.
Again, a year later, in 1863, he wrote that the conduct of the Italian Government was the more entitled to a generous appreciation by the United States, because the cutting off of the supply of cotton by Northern naval operations was a severe injury to Italian industry. In the course of the four years of the Civil War, Marsh never had occasion to send to our Government a word of complaint of the attitude or conduct of Italy. As early as June, 1861, Baron Ricasoli gave special police orders to prevent the sale of vessels or munitions of war to the South, and the hospitality of Italian ports was denied to Southern privateers. It seems appropriate to recall that, when other foreign nations were seriously contributing to the duration and bitterness of Lincoln's task, Italy never deviated from the path of friendship.
At the risk of trespassing on your patience, I would like, at this moment, also to recall a curious and interesting historical incident which betrays the then existing under-current