|
Looking Backward [excerpt]
The events of the year just closing
are of a nature so exceptional as to mark them epoch-making events
in the world’s history. Prominent among these phenomenal or record-breaking
events is the attitude assumed, the position assumed, by the United
States of America as a first-class military and diplomatic power
among the nations of the world.
Hitherto the policy of this government
has been that of non-interference with the affairs of Europe, Asia
or Africa, contenting itself with the affairs of America proper,
and especially with the countries thereof called republics—the enforcement
of the “Monroe doctrine,” which in substance is that if the nations
of Europe and Asia will keep their hands off the territory now claimed
by the Republics of the New World the United States will not meddle
with the affairs of the Old World, so-called.
* * *
Not that the change of policy from
non-interference to interference in the affairs of the old world
was by the Washington government
during the year 1901, but that an event occurred during that year—just
one event, that fixed upon us the policy of interference, the policy
of in the territory of the eastern
hemisphere, as no other event had ever done.
I need not say that that event was
the tragical death of W MK.
Previous to the sixth of September
last the absorption of the Philippines as part of our national domain
could hardly be said to be the fixed policy of our political leaders.
Not only Democratic politicians but many of the ablest Republicans
as well, were strenuously opposed to the policy of imperial expansion
on the opposite side of the globe, but the “martyrdom” of the head
of the administration that had made itself responsible for the new
departure seems to have crushed the spirit of the opposition and
, so to speak, the complete abandonment
of the policy inaugurated by President Washington in his Farewell
Address to the American people.
[omit]
As already indicated, the most notable
event, the event most tremendous in its consequences upon our political
institutions that has occurred during the year now closing, is the
death of William McKinley, by the hand of Leon Czolgosz. Not that
the effects of this tragical event will be [404][405]
at once apparent to the eye of the average observer of human affairs.
The effect, the far-reaching influence, of the tragical death of
the Nazarene and of his immediate apostles, in shaping the history
of the world, was not apparent till some centuries after these tragedies
occurred. Not till the Roman Pontiff became king of kings, lord
of lords and bishop of bishops, in the political and religious life
of Europe, Western Asia and Northern Africa, did the full significance
of Christian martyrdom make itself known, and though shorn of much
of its political power the Christian church—the result of Christian
martyrdom, not of intellectual power or prestige—still remains the
most impassable of all barriers to human progress, over nearly the
whole of Europe and America.
* * *
And so, likewise, will it probably
be with the martyrdom of William McKinley. If this man had been
permitted to serve out his second term as president of the United
States he would probably have retired to private life with little
more of honor or lasting distinction than had Grover Cleveland or
Benjamin Harrison. The policies with which his administration had
become identified would have stood in history upon their own merits,
and might, perhaps, have been reversed during the incumbency of
his successor in office.
In passing, however, it may be said
that while as a man of genius or of culture William McKinley was
probably not above the average American chief magistrate, in one
particular he was eminent if not pre-eminent, and that is in the
possession of . As was said of Louis
the Fourteenth of France, often called the “Grand Monarch,” namely,
that while he was not a great statesman; not a great captain; not
a great philosopher nor great man in any sense, he was in pre-eminent
degree a great . He understood kingcraft
as few kings had ever done.
In like manner it can truthfully be
said of McKinley: He was not a great warrior; not a great statesman;
not a great philosopher or great in
any sense, but he was, in one respect at least, a great .
He understood . He understood
how to prevent party strife, how to head off the factional spirit
that so often disrupts and defeats political parties in the hour
of victory.
* * *
But the fates that preside over human
destinies—if there be such fates—did not allow William McKinley
to end his days in peaceful retirement, as is the wont of our ex-presidents.
When at the height of his popularity—personal and political—and
while still in the prime of a vigorous manhood he is struck down
by the hand of an assassin whose chief and only claim to distinction
is that he was accused and heralded far and wide as a believer in
a philosophy or cult the most feared and hated of all cults, philosophies
or political faiths that have ever been preached or promulgated
in the annals of this world—that of A—with
the natural result, the logical sequence, that in
order to show their hatred of Anarchism and their love and reverence
for the victim of Anarchism, the loyal and patriotic citizens of
this country—Democrats no less than Republicans, will now do their
utmost to carry out the policy inaugurated by the fallen political
chief.
A few “voices in the wilderness,”
like that of McCall, may still be heard, warning of the dangers
ahead, but these voices will probably soon be drowned in the wild
cry, “Down with all Anarchists and all sympathisers with Anarchy!
Long life to the Empire and the E!”
Not without carefully weighing my
words have I said that Czolgosz was
of being an Anarchist. if [sic] he ever called himself an Anarchist
he did so in ignorance of the meaning of the word, and of the methods
of propaganda taught by the leaders of that cult. In his ignorance
he probably had heard that the slayers of King Humbert and other
European crowned heads were Anarchists, and may have thought it
would add to his own fame to call himself by that name.
* * *
While it is much too soon to expect
a rational estimate to be put upon the life and character of either
Czolgosz or McKinley it is interesting to note that a quiet reaction
is going on against the insane folly of the first utterances in
regard to the tragedy of September 6. One month ago the “Chairman
of the Current Events Committee of the Worcester (Mass.) League
of Unitarian Women,” Mrs. E. O. Cumming, had the courage to say,
in a paper read before a session of that League:
“William McKinley will go down
in history as one of our loved American martyrs, but to my view
there is a sadder phase to that tragedy than the death of our
President, a greater martyr, whose name will only be heaped
with revilings and execrations for all time, but whose undoubted
bravery and unflinching martyrdom to what he believed was duty,
in the face of the hatred of the entire world, was more than
courage, it was sublime in its simplicity and directness, and
the evil of his action does not detract from the fact that martyrdom
to a belief was poor Czolgosz’s portion fully as much as ever
[sic] martyr of old died for a mistaken cause.”
That there are many thoughtful persons
of both sexes who think as Mrs. Cumming does, but who lack the courage
to speak out their thoughts, is very probable. For myself, while
freely giving to Leon Czolgosz the credit of good intentions I confess
to finding it hard to feel sympathy for those who voluntarily seek
the martyr’s crown. When imprisonment or death is forced upon anyone
while non-invasively discharging self-imposed duties, it is quite
another thing, but while I have no word of condemnation, as such,
for the Ehuds, the Cordays, the Brescis and the Czolgoszes of history
I have absolutely no sympathy for their methods of trying to make
the world better.
|
