Part 12

[123-1] For an account of some of these discords, _cf._ H. C. Lodge, _One Hundred Years of Peace_, New York, 1913; also _Round Table_, London, December 1913, pp. 106-122.

[123-2] P. A. Molteno, _A Federal South Africa_, London, 1896, p. viii.

[123-3] Concerning these Chinese coolies, cf. _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxv. p.481.

[123-4] M. C. Bruce, _The New Transvaal_, London, 1908, p. Ill.

[124-1] "Proceedings in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand with reference to comments made upon that Court by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Wallis and Others, Appellants, and His Majesty's Solicitor-General for the Colony of New Zealand, Respondent. Together with the Judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in the same Case," Dunedin [New Zealand], 1903, p. 28.

[125-1] "Hindus" (an unfortunate application of a religious creed-name to a people) who had been admitted to the Philippines and who sailed from Manila to San Francisco were debarred entrance to United States, according to _Springfield_ (Massachusetts) _Weekly Republican_, December 11, 1913.

[127-1] _Springfield_ (Massachusetts) _Weekly Republican_, November 27, 1913: "The Monroe Doctrine Today."

[127-2] _Round Table_, London, September 1913, p. 680.

[127-3] Cf. _Ency. Brit._, vol. xviii. p. 789.

[130-1] _A Review of the Present Mutual Relations of the British South African Colonies, to which is appended a Memorandum on South African Railway Unification_, "Printed by Authority" [Johannesburg, 1907]; Lord Selborne's letter of January 7, 1907, p. viii.

[132-1] Sir Harry H. Johnston in _Nineteenth Century_, London, March 1912, questions the appropriateness of leaving these dependencies in the care of Portugal. _Cf._ thirteen months later, _Springfield_ (Massachusetts) _Weekly Republican_, June 12,1913: "That something is brewing in the way of a partition of Portuguese Africa seems likely despite official disclaimers, and the London _Spectator_ now sketches a hypothetical division. . . . " Cf. _Transvaal Leader_, Johannesburg, December 5, 1912, for an account of Lourenço Marques' "warning against the neglectful attitude of the Home [Lisbon] Government toward this Colony."

[132-2] The ratio of the population of British India to the British Isles is approximately 7 to 1. A like ratio exists between the populations of the Dutch Indies and Holland. _Cf._ A. Cabaton, _Java, Sumatra, and the other Islands of the Dutch East Indies_, trans. Bernard Miall, London, 1911, p. 26.

[133-1] George Philip & Son Ltd., _Chamber of Commerce Atlas_, London, 1912, p. 32.

[134-1] J.R. Seeley, _The Expansion of England_, London, 1883, p. 20.

[134-2] _Cf._ W.M. West, _Modern History_, Boston, rev. ed., 1907, pp.300-301.

[134-3] _Ibid._, pp. 294, 295.

[134-4] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, p. 95. This was as of 1758.

[136-1] _Round Table_, London, June 1913, p. 485.

[137-1] Arthur Murphy, _The Works of Cornelius Tacitus_, London, 1798, vol. iv. p. 35.

[138-1] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xxiii. p. 870: "The Russian empire stretches over a vast territory in E. Europe and N. Asia, with an area exceeding 8,660,000 sq. m., or one-sixth of the land surface of the globe. . . ."

[138-2] Cf. _ante_, p. 81, note 1.

[138-3] H. P. Kennard, comp. and ed., _The Russian Yearbook for 1912_, London, 1912, p. 46. This is as of 1910 census.

[139-1] Cf. _ante_, p. 81, note 1.

[141-1] _Round Table_, London, February 1911, p. 140.

[141-2] E. Backhouse and J.O.P. Bland, "Secret Annals of the Manchu Court," in _Atlantic Monthly_, Boston, December 1913, p.767.

[142-1] Toyo Kisen Kaisha (Oriental Steamship Company) boats _Shinyo Maru, Chiyo Maru,_ and _Tenyo Maru_.

[143-1] Cf. _Round Table_, London, May 1911, pp. 263-269.

[144-1] Cf. _Springfield_ (Massachusetts) _Weekly Republican_, June 26, 1913; and _Britannica Year Book_, London, 1913, p. 941.

[145-1] Cf. _Round Table_, London, February 1911, pp. 123-153.

[145-2] _Springfield_ (Massachusetts) _Weekly Republican_, November 27, 1913.

[146-1] _Round Table_, London, September 1913, p. 602.

[146-2] A. T. Mahan, "Japan among the Nations," a letter to the editor of _The Times_, in _The Times_ Weekly Edition, London, June 27, 1913.

[152-1] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, Supplement, p. 51.

[152-2] _Round Table_, London, September 1913, p. 675.

[152-3] _Statesman's Yearbook_, London, 1913, p. 857: 1910 population of Germany 64,925,993, which is 310.4 per square mile.

[152-4] Germany 65,000,000; Japan 49,000,000; America 81,000,000; and all the seven Pan-Angle nations 141,000,000.

[153-1] Cf. _ante_, p. 132, note 1.

[155-1] Price Collier, _Germany and the Germans_, New York, 1913, p.190.

[155-2] Inaugural message of Governor David I. Walsh of Massachusetts to the State Legislature, January 8, 1914.

[155-3] Note the effort, December 1913, of the lower house of the German Parliament to make the Chancellor responsible not to the Emperor but to the lower house.

[158-1] _Round Table_, London, September 1913, p. 675.

[158-2] _Ibid._, May 1911, p. 244.

[158-3] Admiral Henderson in "Report to Australian Government," quoted in _Round Table_, London, May 1911, p. 258.

{160}

VII

TENDENCIES

THE future of the Pan-Angles must flow out of their past. The course it will take is indicated by our history if, following Seeley's admonition, the investigator turns "narrative into problems." "For in history everything depends upon turning narrative into problems. So long as you think of history as a mere chronological narrative, so long you are in the old literary groove which leads to no trustworthy knowledge, but only to that pompous conventional romancing of which all serious men are tired. Break the drowsy spell of narrative; ask yourself questions; set yourself problems; your mind will at once take up a new attitude; you will become an investigator; you will cease to be solemn and begin to be serious."[160-1]

The events of Pan-Angle history reveal three tendencies. These may be designated as: spreading, separating, and converging. They are to be noted both in the various national growths and in the collective growth of the entire civilization. Without discussing seriatim these three tendencies in each one of the seven nations, or the singular {161} similarities exemplified in the histories of the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, consideration is here given only to the aggregate swing or movement in the whole civilization.

The spreading, starting with the days that saw the discovery of Newfoundland, continued and made the whole of North America Pan-Angle land. If the impulse had produced nothing more than this, its work would have been stupendous. Yet the spreading was so effective in other parts of the world that a large proportion of the Southern Hemisphere also became Pan-Angle land. To-day we control thirty per cent. of the world's land surface.[161-1]

The tendency to separate is stimulated whenever the imperative Pan-Angle need of exercising self-government is improperly checked. If this need is satisfied, separation is prevented. If the need is denied satisfaction, it grows more and more acute to the point of rupture.

The story of separations among us began with the failure to recognize this principle of local autonomy, and the many interferences which slowly exasperated the "American Englishmen" to rebel. Thus was destroyed the first Britannic Empire. Thus were embittered against each other the Americans and the British of three generations.

The American Revolution, aptly called the Imperial Civil War, started migrations. Loyalists from the thirteen new nations took Pan-Angle ideals into Canada. "It has been estimated, apparently on good authority, that in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick {162} alone, the Loyalist emigrants and their families amounted to not less than 35,000 persons, and the total number of refugees cannot have been much less than 100,000."[162-1] This is the principal reason why Canada to-day is Pan-Angle rather than French.[162-2] It is the reason, too, why in some parts of Canada there is a feeling grounded on inherited prejudice against the United States.

So little were the causes of the phenomenon of separating understood by the rulers of the British Isles, that Canada, in turn, came to the verge of a revolt which "was in fact a war of nationality in the British Empire, though it wore the disguise of a war of liberty."[162-3] "The settlement of the difficulty was effected by means not very commonly in high favour. For once_ systematic thought was brought to bear upon politics_. . . . a young peer of considerable promise, Lord Durham, was sent out as Governor in 1838; he issued a famous report, due to the pen of Charles Buller, in which the Radical philosophers' principles were vigorously applied . . . and in 1840 Parliament was persuaded to give effect to the proposals made in the report; . . . the main point was that _the Executive branch of government was brought under the control of the colonists. . . . The year 1841 is therefore the year of the inauguration of modern Colonial government._"[162-4] The year 1841, therefore, inaugurated the {163} policies that were in time to check the separating tendency.

Not only was separation the desire of certain of the younger groups, but it was to some extent the desire and foregone conclusion of one group from which separation might take place. The attitude of the British public concerning those portions of the British world where English-speaking white men were claiming increasingly the right to govern themselves was in itself more than an invitation to these "colonies" to separate themselves from the Mother Country. Comparison was made to a tree whose ripened fruit in due season detaches itself from the parent stem. The loss of the richest area in whose conquest the British government ever shared had so impressed statesmen that such men as Gladstone could desire the separation from the British Isles of various Pan-Angle nations.

"During the years which preceded the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 there was in this country [British Isles] a general indifference to the colonial question which did not cease till long afterwards. . . . After the Cobden era came that of Mr. Gladstone, who was in his zenith in the sixties and as purely insular and deficient in the power of Imperial thought as Cobden had been in the forties."[163-1] "A governor, leaving to take charge of an Australian colony, was told even from the Colonial Office that he would probably be the last representative of the Crown sent out from Britain. This tendency of official thought found its culmination when, in 1866, a great journal frankly warned Canada, the {164} greatest of all the colonies, that it was time to prepare for the separation from the mother-land that must needs come."[164-1] "Mr. Goldwin Smith . . . in his . . . _Canada and the Canadian Question_, which may fairly be supposed to condense all that can be said in favor of the separation of Canada from the Empire, and generally in support of that form of national disintegration which is involved in the great colonies becoming separate states or annexing themselves to other nations . . . is almost the last conspicuous representative of a school of thinkers which twenty-five or thirty years ago appeared likely to dominate English opinion on colonial affairs."[164-2] Only slowly were learned the lessons of the American Revolution, which a British historian in 1883 could truthfully say, "We have tacitly agreed to mention as seldom as we can."[164-3]

The tendency to separation is latent in every Pan-Angle community. It is only when local and central authority are properly balanced that it is quieted. In one it has never been quieted. The story of Ireland it is unnecessary and inexpedient here to narrate.[164-4] An Englander calls it "the greatest and most lamentable failure of the Pax Britannica."[164-5] It is merely the proof, again and again repeated, of the inability of Pan-Angles {165} successfully to control the local affairs of other Pan-Angles. There is something in us, in our individualism, that forbids such success, and calls for separation, which leads to rebellion if opposed, or revolution if permitted.

The Irish for generations have been leaving Ireland. They leave embittered against England. That bitterness they spread broadcast in the six younger Pan-Angle nations. Everywhere in these six nations the Irish find home rule.[165-1] The bitterness against government, as government, wears off. The Irishman becomes a citizen of a new and proud nation--he becomes a self-conscious Pan-Angle. But the Irish Question is no nearer solution than before.

Contemporaneous with the separation sentiments among the Britannic peoples were the agitations in the United States that were to culminate in the secession movement. The dread of a strong central government had left in the southern portion of America a belief in state separateness that worked against the existence of a common government which, within the scope of its authority could make decisions binding on all its component lands and people. From the end of the French-Pan-Angle struggle to the beginning of the American Civil War, the century of 1763-1861, the course of separation ran almost unchecked.

As this separation tendency strengthened, the unity of the race and that of one of its component nations were exposed to disintegration. The outcome {166} appeared to forebode the end of Pan-Angle world control. A house divided against itself cannot stand. If this family was to split into national factions of increasingly smaller size, its end was apparent. Some other civilization would absorb the scattered bits of the once powerful race and another chapter of the struggles of successive civilizations would be concluded.

Certain American states, desiring to loosen the tie by which they were bound, seceded from the Union. Other states declared their faith in the federal principle and took their stand against separation. The issue was befogged in many minds by other points of contention. But "the question submitted to the arbitrament of war was the right of secession."[166-1] Those who looked on could see that if success attended the secession movement, Pan-Angles would have to begin again their search for the means of preserving the balance between local and central government. "My paramount object is to save the Union and not either to save or destroy slavery," wrote Lincoln in 1862.[166-2]

Wilson characterizes the three great men of that struggle in terms of the question at stake. Of Lincoln he says: "The whole country is summed up in him: the rude Western strength, tempered with shrewdness and a broad and humane wit; the Eastern conservatism, regardful of law and devoted to fixed standards of duty. He even understood {167} the South, as no other Northern man of his generation did. He respected, because he comprehended, though he could not hold, its view of the Constitution; he appreciated the inexorable compulsions of its past in respect of slavery; he would have secured it once more, and speedily if possible, in its right to self-government when the fight was fought out . . .

"Grant was Lincoln's suitable instrument, . . . A Western man, he had no thought of commonwealths politically separate, and was instinctively for the Union; a man of the common people, he deemed himself always an instrument, never a master, and did his work, though ruthlessly, without malice; a sturdy, hard-willed, taciturn man, a sort of Lincoln the Silent in thought and spirit."

On the opposite side Robert E. Lee fought "for a principle which is in a sense scarcely less American than the principle of Union. He represented the idea of the inherent--the essential--separateness of self-government. . . . Lee did not believe in secession, but he did believe in the local rootage of all government. This is at the bottom, no doubt, an English idea; but it has had a characteristic American development. It is the reverse side of the shield which bears upon its obverse the devices of the Union,[167-1] . . . Lee . . . could not conceive of the nation apart from the State: above {168} all, he could not live in the nation divorced from his neighbors. His own community should decide his political destiny and duty."[168-1]

The outcome of the American Civil War, to those in the Pan-Angle world who were looking forward to an end of separatings--and this included many in the British Isles,--gave hope and inspiration. It demonstrated the reality of American nationhood and, more important still, it encouraged the race on its path towards convergence. It made natural the Canadian Constitution, otherwise known as the British North America Act of 1867. It made reasonable the foundation in London of the Royal Colonial Institute in 1868, whose motto is "United Empire."[168-2] It made comprehensible the theses of such books as Dilke's _Greater Britain_, 1868, and Seeley's _Expansion of England_, 1883.[168-3] Later were to come the convergences of the Australian states in 1900 and the South African provinces in 1909. "For the idea of national unity the people of the United States twenty-five years ago made sacrifices of life and money without a parallel in modern history. No one now doubts that the end justified the enormous expenditure of national force. 'The Union must be preserved' was the pregnant sentence into which Lincoln condensed the national duty of the moment, and to maintain this principle he was able to concentrate the national energy for a supreme effort. The strong man who {169} saved the great republic from disruption takes his place, without a question, among the benefactors of mankind."[169-1]

Moreover, the outcome of the American Civil War tended to revise the attitudes of the British Isles and America toward each other. Up to this time, their attention had been fixed on the conditions of their separation. Hostility seized on various acts performed or permitted by the British government which, rightly or wrongly, the American people considered acts of unfriendliness. These, as the Americans realized, they were hardly in a position to resent while the Civil War was in progress, although at one time war was very nearly declared against the British Isles.[169-2] When the Civil War was over, retaliation might have been undertaken. The American government had at its disposal a navy of over seven hundred vessels, of which over seventy were ironclads. It had an army of over one million seasoned men. The opportunity suggested itself as a proper time to payoff American grudges against the British Isles by annexing Canada. This would have been holding Canada blamable for the doings of another nation. To the credit of the Pan-Angles, President Grant successfully opposed the scheme.[169-3] Not only did the decade 1860-1870 mark the rise of the converging movement in the United States and in Canada, but the same decade saw the culmination and abatement of separating tendencies between {170} the two great powers of the Pan-Angle group, the British Isles and America.

Since those days Pan-Angles have made progress in understanding the balance necessary between the separating and the converging impulses. Men have erred by emphasizing too strongly one side or the other. In America they cried out blindly for "centralization," or "states rights "--in ignorance that only by the complementary strengths of both central and local governments can our sort of people be governed in great masses. Among the Britannic peoples men favoured either British Isles ascendency, or colonial independence--ignorant that the first would as quickly destroy them as would the second. Either course would produce the independence of the younger nations and, through lack of strength to maintain that independence, the loss of it, possibly to some nation outside the Pan-Angle group. These American and Britannic extremists are now a diminishing minority.

The growth of the idea of complementary functions in co-ordinate (not superior and inferior) governments has been instanced by many developments in America. There was a time, many now alive can remember the days, when "centralization" and "states rights" were championed by opposing political parties. To-day it is recognized that the successful government of America rests on the proper use of both of these extremes. This is true, whether it refers to national versus state authorities, or state versus municipal authorities. With a strong central authority in America goes to-day greater recognition of the need of a concurrent local control. This local spirit has gone so far in {171} some of the American states that state legislatures have authorized cities to draw up their own charters.[171-1] Moreover, American political experience within the states has adhered in many cases to the theorem that, on such questions as local taxation and the sale of liquor, the smaller subdivisions of the state should decide their own usages.

Once it was assumed that the officers of the federal government in America should enlarge as much as possible their spheres of activity, even if they appeared to encroach upon state functions. It is now realized that the states should be encouraged to attend to their own affairs, and thus avoid increasing the burdens of the federal government. President Roosevelt in 1908 unofficially called together the American state governors to discuss "conservation," and since then yearly these state executives have met to discuss questions of state policy. These conferences not only tend to produce greater uniformity of Pan-Angle political action, but tend also to make that action the product of large experience. This Conference of the Governors[171-2] and other non-official bodies, the {172} American Bar Association among them, are now encouraged by public opinion to remedy, in whatever ways seem wise, undesirable discrepancies in the laws of the various states, not by seeking greater authority in the central government, but by agitating in the states themselves.

The extent of our progress is shown strikingly by the change in Pan-Angle sentiment between the wars of 1861-1865 and 1899-1902. In South Africa the race was spared any repetition of the humiliating political corruption of the "carpet-bag" era of the American "reconstruction."[172-1] We have learned that whether it is in the United States or South Africa, in Canada[172-2] or in Ireland, white men must be made into self-governing Pan-Angles. Rhodes recognized this when he said even while the war was in progress, ". . . you cannot govern South Africa by trampling on the Dutch."[172-3] The impulses toward local autonomy and those toward a common group unity must be correlated. To favour either at the expense of the other is to court disaster.

The spreading of the Pan-Angles is still going on, though in the multiplicity of affairs arising in {173} the places we already occupy we often overlook the pioneer work of the present. The causes for separating have been understood and extensively removed. The converging tendency is now in the ascendant. The political evolution that accompanies this convergence, though it seems slow to the impatient reformer, may, if understood and assisted by those who shape popular opinion, give Pan-Angles in the fulness of time an entity government.