"The Proposed Anglo-American Alliance" is strongly advocated by Charles A. Gardiner, Esq., of the New York Bar, in a forcibly written pamphlet[13] in which he says:
"An alliance between England and America to adjust their controversies by means of enlightened arbitration has already been introduced into practical politics. The time is opportune for its re-introduction. If the friendly sentiments at Westminster and Washington should be promptly utilised to enact a treaty of arbitration, such an alliance would be justified on every ground of common and reciprocal interests, would have the moral and political support of both nations, would establish a most beneficent precedent for the international adjustment of the affairs of mankind, and would do more than any other single act to make possible the disarmament of nations and the maintenance of universal peace. . . .
{222}
"The grandest thought of the century is this convergence of the Anglo-Saxon race. What more ennobling conception can engage the attention of any association of scholars and thinkers? As citizens and individuals our duties ally us with this beneficent movement. Let us promote a unity already begun; let us encourage the common interests and sentiments of the nations; let us, so far as in us lies, consummate in our day that alliance of kin predicted by the wise and good of three generations, as the 'noblest, most beneficial, most peaceful primacy ever presented to the heart and understanding of man.'"
In an article called "The English-speaking Brotherhood," Professor Charles Waldstein,[14] after summarising the elements that exist in common between the two countries, says:
"Now, when any group of people have all these eight elements in common,they ought of necessity to form a political unity; and when a group of people have not the first of these factors [the same country], but are essentially kin in the remaining seven, they ought to develop some close form of lasting amity. In the case of the people of Great Britain and of the United States, seven of these leading features are actively present.
"It may even be held that the first condition, a common country, which would make of the two peoples one nation, in some sense exists for them. At all events, a country is sufficiently common to them to supply sentimental unity in this direction. . . .
"Leaving the question of a common country, the bond of union becomes closer the further we proceed with the other essential influences which make for unity, when once we drop the misleading and wholly illusory ethnological basis of nationality, and take into account the process of real history. We then must acknowledge that the people of Great Britain and of the United States are of one nationality."
{223}
"The Basis of an Anglo-American Understanding," by the Rev.Lyman Abbott,[15] concludes as follows:
"Thus far I have suggested only 'a good understanding,' because this is immediately practicable, yet I have in my imagination an ideal toward which such a good understanding might tend, but which would far transcend anything suggested by that somewhat vague phrase. Let us suppose, then, that Great Britain and the United States were to enter intoan allianceinvolving these three elements: first,absolute reciprocity of trade; second, a tribunal to which should be referred for settlement, as a matter of course, all questions arising between the two nations, as now all questions arising between the various states of this Union are referred to the Supreme Court of the United States;third, a mutual pledge that an assault on one should be regarded as an assault on both, so that as towards other nations these two would be united as the various states of this Union stand united towards all other states. Such an alliance would include not only our own country and the British Isles, but all the colonies and dependencies of Great Britain—Canada, Australasia, and in time such provinces in Asia and Africa as are under British domination and administration. It would unite in the furtherance of a Christian civilisation all the Anglo-Saxon peoples, and all the peoples acting under the guidance and controlling influence of Anglo-Saxon leaders, it would gradually draw into itself all other peoples of like minds, though of foreign race, such as, in the far east, the people of Japan. It would createa new confederationbased on principles and ideas not on tradition, and bounded by the possibilities of human development not by geographical lines. It would give a new significance to the mottoE Pluribus Unum, and would create a new United States of the World of which the United States of America would be a component part."
Mr. Julian Ralph ends an article,[16] in which he {224} closely examines the causes of the present prejudice existing between the two countries, with this sentence:
"As a last word upon the subject of themooted alliance, my own belief is that itis not as practicable or as advisable as the good understandingthat seems to have already been brought about without too suspicious a show of anxiety on either side, without elaborate discussion, and without formal agreement, I agree with the wisest American to whom I have spoken on the subject, and who said a year ago, when there was no such roseate outlook as this of to-day, 'It may be delayed, and we may even quarrel with England before it is brought about, but, nevertheless, the certain destiny of the two peoplesis to stand together for the maintenance of order, justice, and humanity, and for the extension of a higher form of civilisation than any other nations stand for."
Mr. James K. Hosmer, in an article entitled "The American Evolution: Dependence, Independence, Interdependence,"[17] after presenting a number of contemporaneous English authorities,"1 to show that the American Revolution was inevitable, and in the true interests of the English people themselves, and after quoting a letter which John Bright wrote in 1887 to the Committee for the Celebration of the Centennial of the American Constitution, wherein he states—" As you advance in the second century of your national life, may we not askthat our two nations may become one people?"closes as follows:
"The townships make up the county, the counties the state, the states the United States. What is to hinder a further extension of the federal principle,so that finally we {225} may have a vaster United States, whose members shall be, as empire State, America; then the mother, England; and lastly the great English dependencies, so populous and thoroughly developed that they may justly stand co-ordinate?It cannot be said that this is an unreasonable or Utopian anticipation. Dependence was right in its day; but for English help colonial America would have become a province of France. Independence was and is right. It was well for us, and for Britain too, that we were split apart. Washington, as the main agent in the separation, is justly the most venerated name in our history. But _inter_dependence, too, will in its day be right; and great indeed will be that statesman of the future who shall reconstitute the family bond, conciliate the members into an equal brotherhood, found the vaster union which must be the next great step towards the universal fraternity of man, when patriotism may be merged into a love that will take in all humanity.
"Such suggestions as have just been made are sure to be opposed both in England and America. We on our side cite England's oppression of Ireland, the rapacity with which in all parts of the world she has often enlarged her boundaries, the brutality with which she has trampled upon the rights of weaker men. They cite against America her 'century of dishonour' in the treatment of the Indians, the corruption of her cities, the ruffian's knife and pistol, ready to murder on slight provocation, the prevalence of lynch law over all other law in great districts, her yellow journalism. Indeed, it is a sad tale of shortcoming for both countries. Yet in the case of each the evil is balanced by a thousand things great and good, and the welfare of the world depends upon the growth and prosperity of the English-speaking lands as upon nothing else. The welfare of the world depends upon their accord; and no other circumstance at the present moment is so fraught with hope as that, in the midst of the heavy embarrassments that beset both England and America, the long-sundered kindred slowly gravitate toward alliance."[18]
{226}
Mr. B. O. Flower contributes an article to the discussion,[19] entitled "The Proposed Federation of the Anglo-Saxon Nations," favouring an alliance. The key-note of his views is contained in this passage[20]:
"But beyond a common blood, language, and mutual interests, rises the factor which above all others is fundamental, and which more than aught else makes such an alliance worthy of serious consideration, and thatis the common ideal or goal to which all the moral energies of both people are moving, the spirit which permeates all English-speaking nations, namely, popular sovereignty, or self-government; that is, republicanism in essence."[21]
Mr. Richard Olney, in a convincing argument[22] on international isolation of the United States, explains the doctrine of Washington's warning to his countrymen, "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," as follows:
"The Washington rule of isolation, then, proves on examination to have a much narrower scope than the generally accepted versions given to it. Those versions of it may and undoubtedly do find countenance in loose and general and unconsidered statements of public men both of the Washington era and of later times, . . . Nothing can be more obvious, therefore, than that the conditions for which Washington made his rule no longer exist. . . . There is a patriotism of race as well as of country—and the Anglo-American is as little likely to be indifferent to the one as to {227} the other. Family quarrels there have been heretofore and doubtless there will be again, and the two peoples, at a safe distance which the broad Atlantic interposes, take with each other liberties of speech which only the fondest and dearest relatives indulge in. Nevertheless, they would be found standing together against any alien foe by whom either was menaced with destruction or irreparable calamity, it is not permissible to doubt. Nothing less could be expected of the close community between them in origin, speech, thought, literature, institutions, ideals—in the kind and degree of the civilisation enjoyed by both."
In an article entitled "Shall the United States be Europeanised?"[23] Mr. John Clark Ridpath violently opposes an alliance. He states:
"The time has come when the United States must gravitate rapidlytowardsEurope or else divergefromEurope as far and as fast as possible.
"This is an overwhelming alternative which forces itself upon the American people at the close of the nineteenth century; in the twentieth we shall be either Europeanised or democratized—the one or the other. There is no place of stable equilibrium between the two. This is true for the reason that there can be no such thing as a democratic monarchy; no such thing as a monarchical republic; no such thing as a popular aristocracy; no such thing as a democracy of nabobs.
"The twentieth century will bring us either to democracy unequivocal or to empire absolute. All hybrid combinations of the two are unstable; they break and pass away. Either the one type or the other must be established in our Western hemisphere. The democratic Republic which wethoughtwe had, and which we so greatly prized and fought for, must now sheer offfromEurope altogether, or else sail quietly backtoEurope and come to anchor. Shall we or shall we not go thither?"
{228}
In another article, entitled "The United States and the Concert of Europe,"[24] he says:
"In the first place, I inquire, what is themeaningof the proposed alliance between the United States and Great Britain? Whatkindof an alliance is it that we are asked to enter? Is it an alliance of mere sympathies between the people of the United States and the people of the British Isles? Or is it a league which contemplates a union of military resources, defensive and offensive, one or both? Is it a temporary joining of forces for specific purposes in relation to the existing Spanish War? Is it a coalescence of British and American institutions? Is it a civil and political union which is contemplated? Is it a government alliance in the sense that the government of Great Britain and the government of the United States shall be and act as one? And if so,which oneshall it be? Under which flag is the alliance to be made? Are we, when the union shall be effected, to follow the standard of St. George, or are we to march under the star-banner of our fathers? Whose flag is to prevail? Whose institutional structure is to be accepted for both nations? Of a certainty, we cannot march under both flags. It must be under the one or the other. Which shall it be? Shall we take the flag of the British Empire, or the flag of American Democracy?"
Mr. R.E. Kingsford, in an article entitled "Roma! Cave Tibi!"[25] which he commences with a fervent declaration of love for England and Englishmen, continues:
"Do you care to be warned, or do you wish to continue in a course which will split up your Empire? It is time to speak plainly and it is time for us to understand one another. No matter how much we admire you, no matter how much we reverence you, no matter how much we are ready to submit to neglect at your hands, the time has come when the future {229} course of our relations must be settled. We feel very sore at your preference for the United States. We have been brought up to think that you are right and that they are wrong. We believe in your system of government as opposed to theirs. Both cannot be right. We have always thought that the people ruled in England, while the mob ruled in the United States. But, alas! We are beginning to think that we have been wrong. We see you Englishmen caressing the Americans, flattering them, submitting to them, backing out of declarations made as to what you were going to do until they stepped in and told you to stop. We see our public men, almost without exception, in every speech they make, allude fondly in round set terms to their 'kin beyond the seas.' Will nothing open your eyes? Will you not see that these people are not your kin? They are aliens. Will you not understand that they do not care two straws about you? Their idea is that they are the mightiest nation upon earth. They consider that they own the Continent of North America and that your presence on that continent is an anachronism and an absurdity. Surely they have told you so plainly enough. Do you think that by protesting so much admiration for them you will disarm them? If you do, you are making a huge mistake which you will bitterly pay for. . . .
"I warn you, Englishmen, you are treading on dangerous ground. The British Lion is hugging and slobbering over the American Eagle. But that scrawny bird is only submitting to be embraced. The situation is an illustration of the French Proverb, that there is always one who loves (England), and one who is loved (the United States.) Presently the Eagle's beak will tear the Lion's flesh, and the Eagle's talons tear the Lion's side. Then there will be a roar of astonished anger. But the mistake will have been made, the mischief will have been done. Cease this Anglo-American nonsense. Rely on your own colonies. Establish inter-Imperial tariffs. . . .
"If you persist in allowing yourselves to be cozened by your belief or trust in American good-will, so that you neglect or slight your loyal and true Canadian fellow-subjects, you will lose Canada, you will lose your West India Islands, and {230} then how long will the rest of your Empire last? Roma! Cave Tibi!"
In an editorial from theCanadian Magazinefor August, 1898, entitled "A Hasty Alliance," the learned editor writes as follows:
"During the past two months the proposed Anglo-American Understanding has occupied a great deal of attention in Great Britain and Canada, and a very fair amount of similar enthusiasm in the United States. The idea of an understanding which will enable both branches of the English race—if it may be called such—to work side by side, with one aim and one mission, is certainly most worthy. If it can be successfully carried into performance, it will be the most important political development of the nineteenth century.
"The officials of Great Britain have always been courteous, and kind, and considerate to the United States. These gentlemen have gone so far as to pay the United States a million dollars more for Alabama claims than was actually necessary. They gave up half the State of Maine because they did not care to remark that a certain map was a forgery. They have always used respectable language about or to the United States. When, therefore, they now say that they value United States friendship and approve of Anglo-Saxon unity, I cannot accuse them of inconsistency. Nor can I in my own mind feel that they are insincere. . . .
"Personally, I have no objection to Lord Wolseley, Lord Dufferin, Sir Wilfred Laurier, and Sir Charles Tupper expressing their appreciation of the United States, and their desire to see permanent friendly relations between the two countries. These gentlemen represent the officialdom of Great Britain and of Canada, and are speaking semi-officially. They are, without doubt, quite sincere in their desire to have the two branches of the nation act in unison. But I do object to their pushing Mr. Chamberlain's idea with too much cheap publicity. Let them say what they think and feel without descending to fulsome flattery which they may some day wish they had left unsaid."
{231}
In "Commercial Relations between Canada and the United States," by Robert McConnell, editor of theHalifax Morning Herald,[26] the writer states:
"We believe further that the time has gone by when American politicians can woo Canada into a political union even by a policy of friendliness and close commercial relations. Without in any way seeking to disparage the United States as a great nation, and her people as worthy of the Anglo-Saxon stock from which they sprang, the Canadian people feel that theirs is a higher national and political destiny—to be one of the great family of Anglo-Saxon nations comprising a worldwide British Empire, whose mission is to civilise, enlighten, and christianise the people who come under her sway, and by the genius of free institutions and the influence of a world-wide, peace-producing, and humanising commerce to raise strong barriers against the demon of war and promote peace and good-will among the nations. Why should not the United States come into the Anglo-Saxon family of nations, and have a share in such noble work? There is room enough and scope enough on this continent for the two Anglo-Saxon nations—Canada and the United States—daughters of a common mother, custodians of a common liberty—to work out their separate destinies without being jealous of each other or coveting each other's patrimony and birthright. They can maintain a friendly and honourable rivalry in the world of industry and commerce, and at the same time co-operate heartily in promoting the arts of peace and civilisation, and the welfare of our common humanity the world over."
In an article entitled "The Anglo-American Alliance and the Irish-Americans," by Rev. George McDermot, C.S.P.,[27] the writer opens his article with the following sentence:
"I was tempted to call the alliance proposed by certain persons between England and America 'the Chamberlain-American {232} Alliance'; but stating this thought will answer the purpose of such a heading. I take the subject up as a parable, now that the Local Government Bill for Ireland has passed the Lower House. . . .
"I ask, where is the advantage to America to spring from such an alliance? I have spoken of the subject with reference to Mr. Chamberlain; I shall discuss it in the abstract and show, if space permits, that such an alliance is based on the suggestion of an immoral compact, and is intended for the promotion of a wicked policy, the main advantage of which would be found to rest with England. The idea stated is that the United States will give to England the part of the Philippines they do not mean to retain; and the justification for this is the Pecksniffian one that 'British Civilisation and British Rule will be for the benefit of the islanders.' It is hard to avoid reference to other islanders who have had a long experience of that rule and civilisation. We are informed in this publication, which is sometimes favoured with the lucubrations of Mr. Chamberlain, and never without glosses on his high policy by faithful hands, that 'if it is any advantage to England to own a new Asiatic possession she can probably add to the Empire without much trouble.' This bid for an alliance in pursuance of Mr. Chamberlain's aims is audacious in its candour. It is made at the very moment the 'touling' of the right honourable gentleman has become the subject of dignified and regretful criticism on the part of English public men and the raillery of the Continental press. The honour of the radical section of the Liberal party is saved. It was that section which stood by America in the Civil War, when the ruling and moneyed classes were equipping privateers to prey upon her commerce and trying to compel a recognition of the independence of the Confederacy. . . . "
The author closes with the following sentence:
"However, to pull the chestnuts out of the fire in China is one of the advantages America is to obtain by the proposed alliance; and to me, indeed, the putting of it forward {233} affords the clearest indication that the Secretary for the Colonies, notwithstanding debating talents of no common order, is incapable of forming a policy, wider than the area of a borough, and unable to take the measure of relations and interests, difficulties and complications, larger than those which surround a scheme for lighting or paving a prosperous municipality in England."
Then I must not forget two quotations from articles by Mr. A.Maurice Low, "America's Debt to England"[28] where he says:
"An Anglo-American alliance—not merely an 'understanding,' but formal, definite alliance—I hope to see in the near future. It would mark an epoch in the world's history; it would mean the elevation, the happiness, the advancement of the whole world; it would bring us one step nearer the ideal. In the language of the British Secretary of State for Colonial affairs:
"'Our imagination must be fired when we contemplate the possibility of such a cordial understanding between the seventy million people of the United States and our fifty million Britons, an understanding which would guarantee peace and civilisation to the world.'"
In another article, entitled "Russia, England and the UnitedStates,"[29] he writes:
"In language, in thought, in habits, in manners, in morals, in religion there is nothing in common between the great mass of the people of the United States and the great mass of the people of the Czar's dominions. Our law is based on the common law of England; our literature is derived from the same inspiration; even when we have been foes our common blood has made our deeds and heroism soften the bitterness of war. Perry's victory on Lake Erie thrills the English boy as much as the recital of Broke's capture {234} of theChesapeakedoes the American. Only the other day American and British naval officers, fighting a common foe, fell side by side; and this was not the first time the blood of the two races had mingled facing the enemy; in fact, the Russian and the American are antagonistic. It is, as Senator Lodge points out, the conflict of the Slav and the Saxon—a conflict which has been waging for centuries, and must eventually be fought to the bitter end, until the freedom of the Saxon is so firmly planted that it can never be assailed, or the militarism of the Slav crushes the world under its iron heel and, for a second time, the 'Scourge of God' dominates."
Last in time, but not in strength and eloquence of language, comes Mr. Stead, with a perfect torrent of ideas in favour of the quick nationalisation of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. His book must be read as a whole, and cannot be adequately portrayed by short quotations.[30]
I have now finished what I know to be an imperfect attempt to bring this great subject adequately before the mind of the reader. I must be satisfied merely to open it. The aim of the book is to show that the unification of the English-speaking peoples means the elevation and enlightenment of mankind, the mitigation of suffering, and the opening of new roads to human happiness. This is the mission of the race, and the twentieth century—the Anglo-Saxon Century—should behold its accomplishment.
To aid Anglo-Saxon union I appeal to philosophers, historians, and all other writers to espouse a cause which calls into exercise the best instincts and noblest impulses of mind and soul; I appeal {235} to lawyers to combine in favour of a union which preserves and enlarges a system of jurisprudence, which, properly administered, means exact justice and true equality to all men; I appeal to individual priests and preachers everywhere to advocate a text which will draw men nearer to true religion; I appeal to all the Churches, whose holy mission is peace and good-will to the world; and I finally appeal to the organs of public opinion, individually and collectively: the Pulpit, the Press, the Bar, and the Stage, to help the great Anglo-Saxon peoples consummate their destiny in one combined effort to perform the duty with which God has charged them.
"All powerI give thee; reign for ever, and assumeThy merits; under thee, as Head Supreme, Thrones, Princedoms,Powers, Dominions,I reduce,"[31]
[1]Contemporary Review, April, 1897.
[2]Atlantic Monthly, July, 1898.
[3]Scribner's Magazine, December, 1898.
[4]Westminster Review, August, 1898.
[5]Pall Mall Magazine, September, 1898.
[6]Forum, January, 1899.
[7]Contemporary Review, June, 1899.
[8]North American Review, September, 1898.
[9]North American Review, June, 1898.
[10]The Independent, February 23, 1899.
[11]Atlantic Monthly, April, 1897.
[12]Ibid., October, 1898.
[13]Questions of the Day, No. XCII., p. 27. published by G. P. Putnam's Sons.
[14]North American Review, August, 1898.
[15]North American Review, May, 1898.
[16]Harper's New Monthly Magazine, February, 1899.
[17]Atlantic Monthly, July, 1898.
[18] See, also, by the same author,A Short History of Anglo-Saxon Freedom, 1890.
[19]Arena, August, 1898.
[20] Pp. 225, 226.
[21] See, also, "The Anglo-American Future," by Frederick Greenwood,The Nineteenth Century, July, 1898.
[22]Atlantic Monthly, May, 1898.
[23]Arena, December, 1897.
[24]Arena, August, 1898.
[25]Canadian Magazine, January, 1899
[26]Canadian Magazine, January, 1899.
[27]Catholic World, October, 1898.
[28]Anglo-American Magazine, March, 1899.
[29]Forum, October, 1899.
[30]The Americanization of the World, W.T. Stead.
[31] Paradise Lost, Book III.
{236}
{237}
Index
Abbott, Rev. Lyman, article "The Basis of an Anglo-AmericanUnderstanding," 223
Adams, Prof. George Burton, article "A Century Anglo-SaxonExpansion," 22
Adams, John, is descent, 105
Adams, John Quincy, his descent, 105
Adams, Samuel, his descent, 100
Alfred the Great, his millennium, 73, 74; his work, 75
Anglo-American League, resolution of same, 57; its officers, 57; its brief history, 152
Anglo-Saxon alliance, origin of suggestion, 48; first limited to an offensive and defensive treaty, 54; growth of alliance, 54, 55; indefiniteness of same, 55, 58, 59; motive of alliance, 57, 58; present condition of subject, 59; first step in the movement, 59, 60; how the subject will be treated by politicians, 60, 61; impracticability of defensive and offensive treaty, 61, 62, 152; basis of alliance, 67, 68; commemorated by some instrument, 68; Revolution of 1776 said to be a barrier to alliance, 84; past should be forgotten, 94, 95; England has changed since 1776, 95, 96; alliance is natural as to time, 100; alliance is natural as to people, 100, 101; first place ought to be given to family nationality, 102; same language, 108-112; same literature, 116; same political institutions, 124; same laws, legal customs, general modes of judicial procedure, 133, 134; same tendency of religious thought, 137, 138; value of intermarriage, 138; value of a common drama, 139, 140; natural community in everything important, 141; commercial reasons, 143, 144; self-preservation leads to same, 145, 146; effect of recent years upon the two nations, 153; state of public opinion, 209, 210; majority of newspapers favour alliance, 210; pulpit favours same, 210; the stage favours same, 210; quotations favouring alliance, 212et seq.;seeMethods of union;seeSubjects of treaty
Anglo-Saxon race, European combinationvs.same, 50; accusations against, 51; its striking characteristic, 63, 76, 77; corroborations by eminent authority, 63, 64; all of one family, 101, 102; vigour due to admixture of blood, 103; another characteristic, 147; its ideals have never been destroyed, 148; its unselfish progress, 148, 149; duty of race, 150
Arbitration court, 207, 208
Arthur, Chester A., his descent, 100
Bacon, Lord, importance of commercial freedom, 203, 204
Bainbridge, William, his descent, 107
{238}
Beresford, Lord Charles, article "An Anglo-American Alliance," 219
Bright, John, his wish for unity, 224
Bryce, James, advocating common citizenship, 188, 213
Buchanan, James, his descent, 106 Burke, Edmund, commendsEnglish colonial government, 88
Calhoun, John C., his descent, 106 Canada, bond with England merely sentimental, 100; her present relation to England, 100; her constitution, 163; effect of same, 163; her value to England, 164; England formal sovereign and actual champion, 165, 166; how affected by war between England and United States, 166, 167; relation to United States, 172, 173; lesson from Scotch history, 173-175; originally embraced in plan of American Republic, 175; attempts towards annexation, 176, 177; apathy in United States, 177; benefits of union, 195
Carlyle, Thomas, the power of literature, 124
Chamberlain, Joseph, article favouring alliance, 213, 214
Chase, Salmon P., his descent, 100 China, commercial relations to Western Powers, 16; policy of Western Powers towards China, 17, 20; her internal condition, 18-20; conduct of Powers in late difficulty, 21, 22
Choate, Rufus, his descent, 107 Christianity, introduction intoEngland, 72; its relation to government, 72; its part inEngland, 73; first step in English progress, 73
Civilisation, its primary meaning, 64; its secondary meaning, 65, 66; third meaning, 66
Clay, Henry, his descent, 100 Cleveland, Grover, his descent, 106
Commercial relations of England and America, an early glimpse, 143; one business community, 144; statistics of imports and exports, 144; advantages of free commercial relations, 202-204; two benefits from commercial reciprocity, 205
Common citizenship, scheme of same, 180-182; effects of same, 182, 189, 199, 200; Constitution to be amended, 183; rights and duties resulting from establishment of common citizenship, 183, 184; advocacy of same, 188, 189;seeNaturalisation Laws
Constitution of United States, comparison with Magna Charta, 127-131; for the people, 128; agreement between thirteen independent States, 128; the legislative power regulated, 128; distinction between it and English charters, 130, 131; source of inspiration, 132; Bill of Rights copied from English charters, 132; new matter in same, 132; Gladstone's eulogy, 133
Copeland, Walter Charles, article favouring alliance, 214
Cuba, short-sighted policy of United States towards Cuba, 45
Davis, Jefferson, his descent, 100 Decatur, Stephen H., his descent, 107
De Tocqueville, language the strongest tie, 110
Dewey, George, his descent, 107 Dicey, Professor, advocating common citizenship, 188; article, "A Common Citizenship for the English Races," 212
Dilke, Sir Charles, article on alliance, 214; article, "The Future Relations of Great Britain and the United States," 215, 216
Egbert, union brought about by, 74
Ellsworth, Oliver, his descent, 107
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, quotation fromEnglish Traits, 73; his descent, 108
England, predictions of decline, 5; predictions refuted, 5, 6; amelioration of society in nineteenth century, 8; checking Russia in the East, 12, 13; conduct in late {239} Chinese difficulty, 21; future policy towards China, 22; her aid to United States in Spanish-American War, 49. 50, 52, 53; accused of leading United States into Imperialism, 54;—History: commencement of national life:, 71, 72; Christianity in England, first step in her progress, 72, 73; consolidation of kingdoms, second step in her progress, 74; drift towards unity arrested, 75, 76; causes which finally resulted in alliance, 76; comparison with Grecian cities, 76, 77; influence of Roman law, third step in her progress, 77, 78; the Great Charter, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, fourth span in English development, 79, 80; union with Scotland, fifth span in English development, '80; opposition in Scotland to union, 81; discovery of America, sixth span in English development, 81, 82; independence in the colonies, seventh great span in English development, 83, 84; England has changed since 1776, 95, 96; English welcome to American literature, 123; English political development, 124-131; time of Alfred, 125; seeds of parliamentary birth, 125, 126; germs of Magna Charta, 126; the grants of Henry I. and Stephen, 127; origin of House of Commons, 129; separation from Church of Rome, 130; despotism under Tudors, 130; reforms in reign of William III., 130;—state of religion, 137, 138; her position in Europe, 145, 146; her relation to Canada, 163, 164; formal sovereign and actual champion, 165-167;seeRevolutionary War;seeMagna Charta
English race,seeEngland
Evarts, William M., his descent, 107
Evolution, definition of, 48, 49
Farragut, David Glascoe, his descent, 107
Fillmore, Millard, his descent, 106
Flower, B. O., article., The Proposed Federation of theAnglo-Saxon Nations," 226
Foote, Andrew Hull, his descent, 107
France, her internal decay, 22, 23; mistakes in government, 23; incongruous position of French Cabinet, 24; deplorable condition of Republicanism, 25, 29; effect of Franco-Prussian War, 26, 27; origin of alliance with Russia, 27; hurtful effect of alliance, 28; her true policy, 28, 30; potency of militarism, 29, 30
Franco-Russian alliance, origin of, 27; effect of, 28
Franklin, Benjamin, his descent, 106 Freeman, Professor, nation defined by language, 113; system of separate free cities, 170; his hope for common citizenship, 188
Gallatin, Albert, his descent, 108
Gardiner, Charles A., article "The Proposed Anglo-AmericanAlliance," 221, 222
Garfield, James A., his descent, 106 Gibbon, Edward, narrow policy of preserving, without mixture, pure blood of the ancient citizens, 103
Gladstone, William E., eulogy on American Constitution, 133
Government, its primary ends, 62; the ideal commonwealth, 62, 63; government has character like individual, 69, 70; isolation is unnatural, 147; government is made for man, 200; distinction between democracy and republic, 201, 202
Grant, U. S., his descent, 106
Grecian states, deficient in political unity, 187; Roman policy compared, 187
Greene, Nathanael, his descent, 107
Grote, language a tie among the Greeks, 113
Hamilton, Alexander, his descent, 108; neighbouring nations natural enemies of each other, 171
{240}
Harrison, Benjamin, his descent, 106 Harrison, William H., his descent, 106
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, his descent, 108
Hayes, Rutherford B., his descent, 106
Henry, Patrick, his descent, 106 History, its underlying forces, 46, 47
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, descent of, 108
Hosmer, James K., article, "Dependence, Independence,Interdependence," 224, 225
Immigration, sentiment against, 194; sentiment not againstEnglish-speaking peoples, 194, 195
Ireland, common citizenship a benefit to, 190
Irving, Washington, his descent, 108
Isopolity, description of same, 185, 186;seeCommon citizenship
Jackson, Andrew, his descent, 106 Jackson, Thomas Jonathan, his descent, 107
Jay, John, his descent, 107 Jefferson, Thomas, his descent, 105Johnson, Andrew, his descent, 106
Johnston, Joseph E., his descent, 107
Kent, James, descent of, 107
Kingsford, R. E., article "Roma! Cave Tibi!" 228-230; "A HastyAlliance," 230
Language, power of, 109, 110; bond of sympathy, III; tie among the Greeks, 113-115
Laurier, Sir Wilfred, interview with same concerning Canadian question, 171
Law, similarity of laws in United States and England, 133-135; differences in same, 136
Lea, Charles Henry, article. "The Decadence of Spain," 35
Lecky, the dream of many English and Americans, 154, 155; sentiment of nationality, 100
Lee, Robert Edward, his descent, 107
Lincoln, Abraham, his descent, 100
Literature, its function, 116, 117; its imperishableness, 117; universal medium of communication, 118; English literature compared, 118; consequences of its development, 119; derivation of English literature, 120; its native quality, 121, 122; English welcome to American literature, 123
Longfellow, Henry W., his descent, 108
Low, A. Maurice, article "America's Debt to England," 233;"Russia, England, and the United States," 233,234
Lowell, James Russell, his descent, 108
McConnell, Robert, article "Commercial Relations between Canada and the United States," 231
McDermot, Rev. George, article "The Anglo-American Alliance and the Irish-Americans," 231-233
McFadden, Theodore, article on William Penn, 73
McKinley, William, his descent, 100 Madison, James, his descent, 105
Magna Charta, comparison with Constitution of United States, 127-131; enacted in a single day. 127; brief summary of its provisions, 127; parties to charter, 127; Deed of Confirmation, 128; rights of persons and things, 128; limitation of kingly power, 129
Marshall, John, his descent, 107 Methods of union, impracticability of one nation for all Englishmen and Americans, 154; impracticability of federation, 154, 155; treaty binding upon all a feasible method of union, 155-157; contents of treaty, 157
Mexico, her peculiar position, 42; power of President Diaz, 42; incapability of people for republican government, 43
{241}
Miles, Nelson A., his descent, 107
Mills, Hon. David, article,North American Review, "WhichShall Dominate, Saxon or Slav?" 13-16
Mommsen, admission with reference to English, 63; sins of fathers not visited upon children, 95; common citizenship in Grecian communities, 180; Hellenic system of common money, 200
Money, influence of common standard, 205. 206
Monroe Doctrine, application to confederation ofSpanish-speaking countries, 40, 41
Monroe, James, his descent, 105 Montesquieu, quotation fromSpirit of Laws, 63
Morgan, J. Pierpont, his descent, 108
Morris, Robert, his descent, 108
Naturalisation laws, their general policy, 191; history of, in United States, 191, 192; object of same, 193; laxity of their enforcement, 196; objections to curtailment answered, 196; foreigners cannot interfere, 197, 198;seeCommon citizenship
Olney, Richard, article explaining Washington's policy of isolation, 226, 227
Perry, Oliver H., his descent, 107
Peter the Great, his dream of conquest, 13
Pierce, Franklin, his descent, 106
Poe, Edgar Allan, his descent, 108
Polk, James K., his descent, 106
Preble, Edward, his descent, 107
Ralph, Julian, article favouring alliance, 224
Randolph, John, his descent, 100
Revolutionary War, natural result of existing conditions, 85, 86; apology for same, 86, 87; antecedent conditions prior to same justified, 88, 89; war a blessing to the United States, 90; England fought for union with us, 93
Ridpath, John Clark, article "Shall the United States be Europeanised?" 227; article "The United States and the Concert of Europe," 228
Roman law, third span in English civilisation, 77; influence in England, 77, 78; comparison with common law, 78; instrument of despotism, 78
Roosevelt, Theodore, his descent, 106
Russia, internal condition, II; external policy, 11,12,14,15; her adaptability to govern China, 15: her Chinese policy, 17
Schurz, Carl, article advocating alliance, 220, 221
Scotland, union with England, 80; opposition to same, 81; wisdom of union, 174, 175; Bacon's advocacy of same, 179
Scott, Winfield, his descent, 107 Self-preservation, nature of, explained, 145
Semmes, Raphael, his descent, 107
Seward, William H., his descent, 106
Sheridan, Philip H., his descent, 107
Sherman, William Tecumseh, his descent, 107
Smith, Goldwin, union of Canada with United States, 176
South American republics, condition of same, 41
Spain, financial depletion, 37; dissatisfaction with government, 38; natural advantages, 39; strong monarchical tendency, 39, 40
Spanish-American War, its significance, 2, 3; England's aid to the United States, 49, 50, 52, 53: importance of war, 55
Spanish, and Portuguese people, number of persons who speak language, 31-33; territory occupied by same, 31-33; absence of political unity, 33; their past history contrasted with present, 34, 35; {242} individual characteristics, 35; comparison with Anglo-Saxons, 35, 36; difficulties of establishing federation between Spanish-speaking countries, 39-41;seeSpain
Stead, W, T., the Americanisation of the world, 234
Story, Joseph, his descent, 107 Subjects of treaty, Canada to come into the United States, 159, 160; union must be voluntary, 161; interest plus sentiment, 162; treaty of common citizenship sustainable, 198; proviso to treaty under certain conditions, 199; free commercial relations between English-speaking countries, 202, 203; same gold, silver, nickel, and copper money, 205, 200; uniform standard of weights and measures, 207; arbitration court, 207, 208;seecommon citizenship
Sumner, Charles, his descent, 106
Sympolity, meaning of same, 185, 186
Taney, Roger Brooke, his descent, 107
Taylor, Zachary, his descent, 100
Temple, Sir Richard, article "An Anglo-Americanvs.a EuropeanCombination," 218
Thomas, George Henry, his descent, 107
Thucydides, quotation from, 162
Tilden, Samuel J., his descent, 107
Tourgee, A. W., article "The Twentieth Century Peacemakers," 216, 217
Tyler, John, his descent, 100
United States, effect of Spanish War upon, 3, 4; conduct in late Chinese difficulty, 21; future policy towards China, 22; assent to federation of Spanish-speaking countries, 40, 41; weak policy towards Cuba, 45; England's support to United Slates in Spanish-American War, 49, 50,52, 53; population is heterogeneous, 103, 104; foreign element quickly assimilated, 104; loyalty of these new citizens to the Republic, 104, 105; predominant element is of English, Scotch, and Irish descent, 105; statement illustrated, 105-108; English welcome to American literature, 123; colossal development explained, 134; barrier to creation of Republic, 134; similarity between English laws and laws of United States, 135-137; state of religion, 137, 138; English financial support built up the country, 143; Canada bone of contention between England and United States, 172; Canada's relation to United States, 172, 173; indifference in United States towards union with Canada, 177; history of naturalisation laws, 191;seeCanada;seeRevolutionary War;seeConstitution of the United States
Van Buren, Martin, his descent, 106
Waldstein, Prof. Charles, article "The English-SpeakingBrotherhood" 222
Washington, George, his descent, 105
Wealth, its true meaning, 6; its relation to the State, 7
Webster, Daniel, speech at Plymouth, 63, 64; his descent, 106; speech at Oxford, 122; speech at public dinner of New England Society of New York, 149, 150
Whittier, John Greenleaf, his descent, 108
[Transcriber's Note: All spellings have been preserved as printed. Footnotes have been re-numbered to convert them to chapter endnotes.]
End of Project Gutenberg's The Anglo-Saxon Century, by John Dos Passos