« AnteriorContinuar »
celebrated and so just in its appreciation of the results achieved, the following paragraphs are quoted:
Of all the peoples of Europe, only the French and the English possessed the power, the energy, the adventurous courage, the opportunity and the occasion, for expansion across the Atlantic. The field and the prize were for them, and for them alone.
For centuries the struggle between civil and religious absolutism on the one hand and individual liberty on the other were waged alike in France and in England. The attempt to colonize America came from one side of the controversy in France and from the other side of the same controversy in England. The virtues of the two systems were to be tried out and the irrepressible conflict between them was to be continued, in the wilderness.
Fortunately for England, between the two parties all along the controlling strategic line from this Lake Champlain to the gateway of the West at Fort Duquesne, stretched the barrier of the Long House and it tributary nations. They were always ready, always organized, always watchful. They continually threatened and frequently broke the great French military line of communication. Along the whole line they kept the French continually in jeopardy. Before the barrier the French built forts and trained soldiers — behind it the English cleared the forests and built homes and cultivated fields and grew to a great multitude, strong in individual freedom and in the practice of self-government. Again and again the French hurled their forces against the Long House, but always with little practical advantage.
So, to and fro the war parties went, harrying and burning and killing, but always the barrier stood, and always with its aid the English colonies labored and fought and grew strong. When the final struggle came between the armies of France and England, the French had the genius of Montcalm and soldiers as brave as ever drew sword; but behind Wolfe and his stout English hearts was a new people, rich in supplies, trained in warfare, and ready to fight for their homes.
South Carolina, the records show, furnished twelve hundred and fifty men for the war; Virginia, two thousand; Pennsylvania, two thousand seven hundred; New Jersey, one thousand; New York, two thousand six hundred and eighty; New Hampshire and Rhode Island, one thousand; Connecticut, five thousand; Massachusetts, seven thousand. It was not merely the army - it was that a nation had arrived, too great in numbers, in extent of territory, in strength of independent, individual character, to be overwhelmed by any power that France could possibly produce. The conclusion was foregone. A battle lost or won at Quebec or elsewhere could but hasten or retard the result a little. The result was sure to come as it did come.
In all this interesting and romantic story may be seen two great proximate causes of the French failure and the English success; two reasons why from Quebec to the Pacific we speak English, follow the course of the common law,
and estimate and maintain our rights according to the principles of English freedom.
One of these was the great inferiority of the Indian allies of the French, and the great superiority of the Indian allies of the English; the effective and enduring organization, the warlike power, of the Iroquois, and their fidelity to the "covenant chain " which bound them to our fathers. The other cause lies deeper :
It is that peoples, not monarchs, settlers, not soldiers, build empires: that the spirit of absolutism in a royal court is a less vital principle than the spirit of liberty in a nation.
The Hudson-Fulton Celebration.
With the settlement of Quebec in 1608, the discovery of Lake Champlain in 1609, and the entry of the Half Moon into the beautiful harbor of New York in the same year, the Hudson Celebration is naturally and inextricably connected, and the voyage of the Clermont, with its influence upon the industry and the commerce of the world, indicates, it is to be hoped, an appreciation of the rôle which industry and commerce play in the world's history and that the struggles of the future are to be economic not physical, for industry and commerce presuppose for their normal development peace, and in the trail of peace, prosperity and content follow.
France and England were not the sole contestants for North America. Spain established herself in Florida in 1564; Sweden sought an outlet for its people in Delaware; Holland established itself in New Amsterdam and New Jersey and took by force of arms Delaware from the Swedes. Thus the Gulf of Mexico was controlled by the Spaniard, the English Colonies of the Atlantic seaboard were hemmed in between the Spaniard and the Dutch, and New England was separated by New Netherlands. Settlement, commercial prosperity and the sword declared in favor of the English, who, on the eve of the final struggle, possessed the Atlantic seaboard between Florida and Canada, and at the outbreak of the French and Indian War France and Great Britain alone contended for the mastery of a continent. The ifs of history are attractive and we may well speculate upon the future of America if the nations of Europe had maintained and developed their colonies within the present boundaries of the United States. They did not, for reasons too familiar to be chronicled, although at one time it seemed not improbable, at least possible, that they might.
The discovery of the II udson River by Henry Hudson, an English navigator in the service of the Dutch, raised the hopes of Holland. The
settlement of New Amsterdam, the control of the river to Albany, the subsequent acquisition of New Jersey and Delaware, gave the United Republics a firm foothold on the continent, but the overthrow of the Stuarts, the establishment of the Protectorate, the aggressive poliey of Cromwell and his defeat of the Dutch, prepared the downfall of Dutch colenization in America. The English expedition organized by the Duke of York, the conquest of the Dutch colonies due to his initiative and their incorporation into English possessions, not only dispelled the dream of the Dutch but gave geographical unity to British possessions ; and, as previously indicated, the possession of New York and the highway from Lake Champlain to Albany not only checked the advance of the French from Canada, but led to the conquest of New France. The celebration, therefore, of the discovery of the Hudson was the celebration of an international event of great importance if judged by its consequences, and it was eminently fitting that it should be international in character as it was international in fact.
The fact that the achievement of Fulton shared equally in the celebration, as evidenced by its name, shows unmistakably that we understand its importance in the progress of the world, and that peaceful private enterprise disconnected with war and the rumors of war is rightly regarded as a factor and not the least influential in the history and development of nations. The settlement of Quebec, the discovery of Lake Champlain, the voyage of Hudson were national acts emanating from sovereignty and conferring sovereignty. The invention of Fulton was the act of an individual and by bringing nations closer together, by exchanging the products of the world and administering to the needs of men, he has enrolled himself among the benefactors of mankind and is rightly entitled to international recognition and celebration.
SECRETARY KNOX AND INTERNATIONAL UNITY
In an address delivered at the annual banquet of the Pennsylvania Society of New York, December 11, 1909, Secretary Knox confessed his faith in international unity and briefly but adequately indicated the steps already taken and those certainly to be taken for international unity while preserving national organization as the basis or unit of international law.
Mr. Knox opened his address with the following apt paragraphs:
“We now know that freedom is a thing incompatible with corporate iife anl a blessing probably peculiar to the solitary robber; we know besides that every advance in richness of existence, whether moral or material, is paid for by a loss of liberty; that liberty is man's coin in which he pays his way; that luxury and knowledge and virtue, and love and the family affections are all so many fresh fetters on the naked and solitary freeman."
This was said by a distinguished writer referring to the individual units who have constructed the political systems under which society is organized. It applies with equal truth to the governments they have created. Every material and moral advance in the sodality of nations, for universal, as distinguished from local or domestic purposes, is achieved by concassions restraining to a greater or less degree the liberty of action of individual states for the benefit of the community of nations and in obedience to the demands of an international public opinion.
These concessions to international unity have been brought about through international conferences, congresses, associations, and meetings, covering such a wide range of the material needs and moral aspirations of nations as to make it quite impossible even to specify them and their purpose with any particularity. Broadly speaking, however, they have been designed to establish common policies in large political and economic affairs, to secure cooperation in the promotion of international harmony, to assuage human hardships, to elevate the morals of the world, and to secure the blessings of uniform and enlightened justice.
Mr. Knox then analyzed the tendency of modern times toward international unity, and thus enumerates the reasons which are drawing nations closer together:
The tendency of modern times then is manifestly toward international unity, at the same time preserving national organization. International independence and its corollary, international equality, have been recognized from the Congress of Westphalia, in 1648, putting an end to the Thirty Years' war and recognizing the independence and equal right of States irrespective of their origin and religion. Intercommunication has brought nations within easy reach of each other. The development of commerce and industry and the necessary exchange of commodities have caused nations to see that their interests are similar and interdependent, and that a like policy is often necessary as well for the expansion as for the protection of their interests. Independence exists, but the interdependence of States is as clearly recognized as their political independence. Indeed, the tendency is very marked to substitute interdependence for independence, and each nation is likely to see itself forced to yield something of its initiative, not to any one nation, but to the community of nations in payment for its share in the “ advance in richness of existence."
As evidence of the tendency toward unification, he specifies the conventions dealing with the following subjects: Telegraph Union, Postai Union, Navigation, Railway Freight Transportation.
While appreciating the value of political conferences as such, Mr. Knox lays stress upon conferences of a non-political character, and thus estimates their importance in international unity:
Many private conferences have been held during the past century and a half and much has been done in that way to bring nations together by showing the identity of interest and the oneness of the world. Political conferences are much more striking, especially if they represent many States and are diplomatic in character, but it is doubtful if these conferences are so genuinely helpful and produce such beneficial results as the less formal and more individual conferences due to private or semi-public initiative which meet with constant and surprising regularity. If we bear in mind that these conferences are usually attended by people of achievement in their various lines and professions, we can readily see what influence they are quietly exerting. No conventions are drawn up, no treaties are negotiated, but the results enter into the life and thought of the nations.
Of political conferences he says the following:
As distinct from the conferences called for economic, commercial or moral purposes, political conferences have been very frequent in the past two centuries. At first they met at the end of war to conclude peace. More recently conferences have been called in time of peace to regulate future warfare. More recently still, indeed within the last generation, conferences have met in time of peace to devise means for preserving peace instead of devising rules for futura warfare. These conferences have had one point in common, namely, that the termination of war by the conclusion of peace, the regulation of eventual war and the settlement of difficulties without a resort to war are matters of international concern. However important the acts of these conferences, the fact of their meeting was even more important, for it is evidence that the common interest of nations is being recognized as superior to their special interests and that unity of action in international matters may yet control the unrestrained, unregulated, or isolated action of independent States.
Secretary Knox then refers to the International Prize Court, which has been considered by many competent authorities as the most important result of the Second Hague Conference, and proposes to enlarge its usefulness by investing it with the functions of a court of arbitral justice.
In 1907 The Hague Peace Conference adopted the joint project of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany for the establishment of an international prize court, whicse jurisdiction, as its name implies, extends to cases of prize which can only arise during a state of war,