Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

professional inaugurals, this relation of history to politics. One of the Germans mentioned satirizes those who like ancient history merely because it is ancient, and Seeley says that the only reason for studying the past is to make use of its lessons for guiding us in the present. History is, he says, the gymnasium and the arsenal of the statesman. He even goes so far as to say that the best way to understand the past is to begin by a study of the present. "No doubt," he says, "in that peaceful world of the past you escape all that is most uncomfortable in the present-the bustle, the petty detail, the slovenliness, the vulgarity, the hot discomfort, the bewildering hubbub, the humiliating spites and misconstructions, the ceaseless brawl of objurgation and recrimination, the painfulness of good men hating each other, the perplexingness of wise men flatly contradicting each other, the perpetual sight of failure or of success soon regretted, of good things turning out to have a bad side, of new sores breaking out as fast as the old ones are healed, the laboriousness and littleness of all improvement, and in general the commonness, and dullness, and uneasiness of life. We escape from all this in the past, but after all we escape from it only by an illusion." "Past history," he says, further on, "is a dogmatist, furnishing for every doubt ready made and hackneyed determinations. Present history is a Socrates, knowing nothing, but guiding others to knowledge by suggestive interrogations."

You will doubtless agree with me that Prof. Seeley, for the sake of a sharp antithesis, has somewhat overstated the case against past history; but it would have been hardly possible for him or any man to overstate the importance of the study of present history, the study of present politics and economics. A knowledge of Adam Smith or Mill is now required of all students of modern history at Oxford, and they are asked to trace the economic history of the periods that they especially investigate. At this university is Prof. Freeman, author of the much quoted saying that "history is past politics, and politics present history."

I dwell thus on the connection between history and politics because I speak primarily to an historical association, because "the studies of history and politics mutually aid and vitalize each other," because I feel that in this university the study of history needs to urge no further apology for its existence, and because a very large

share of all that is helpful and progressive in modern political economy has been secured to it by the use of historical method. We are prone to trace great influences to great men, and this, perhaps justifies Maurenbrecher in ascribing to the influence of Niebuhr and his followers not only the modern historical school, but the incentive for the development of comparative jurisprudence and historical economics.

But new and now united Germany is not the only modern nation, as we have seen, whose leaders wished that its people might be strengthened by the influences of colleges and universities. At the beginning of our own national history there stand two party chiefs, one a representative of the south, the other of the north; one a republican, the other a federalist; one the formulator of principles to which a great party still gives allegiance, the other the author of measures and policies whose influence is still powerful; one the author of the declaration of independence, the other the defender and establisher of our constitution. If Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed in nothing else they at least agreed in thinking that education, and education in politics, is essential to intelligent citizenship. Hamilton was a graduate of King's (now Columbia) college, and was a prime mover in establishing the university of New York; Jefferson was from William and Mary's college and was the prime mover in establishing the university of Virginia. Many of the promoters of this institution were themselves graduates of William and Mary, which was the oldest college in the south, and the oldest, except Harvard, in the country. Besides Jefferson, it had graduated Peyton and Beverly Randolph, John Marshall, and given his commission as county surveyor to Washington.

I

Jefferson was especially anxious that political science should be taught in the university of Virginia, which he was instrumental in founding, and of which he was the first rector. He himself translated a text book from the French to be used for that purpose. will not give the details of the management and curriculum of this somewhat exceptional foundation, which has been to the south “The University." A study by Wm. P. Trent of the subsequent careers of about 9,000 students who attended it up to the year 1874, the semi-cen

tennial of its founding, gives the following rather remarkable results:

[blocks in formation]

These figures show what powerful influences flow from our universities, and perhaps the strong tendency to politics is the outcome of the teaching of political science.

Many seem to think that our constitution was given to this country by special inspiration. As a matter of fact it was evolved not only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity," but by careful and scholarly study of the old Greek confederacies, such as the Aetolian and Achaian leagues. Careful notes regarding the constitutions of these old confederacies were found among Washington's papers, he having obtained them from James Madison.

Washington himself supposed that in his will he had made adequate provision for the founding of a national university, and he declared that the primary object of such an institution should be the education of our youth in the science of government."

The first notably successful teacher of political science in this country was probably Francis Lieber. He went to college at Columbia, South Carolina, as professor of history, philosophy and political economy. The influence the university obtained in the practical politics of the state was remarkable. In the legislature there was a distinct university party made up of young, energetic and aggressive men, who usually managed to have everything their own way. Lieber's friends took part in practical politics with a view to securing the chancellorship of the university for him. He was defeated and resigned his place, going to Columbia college, New York, to teach modern history, political science, international law, civil law and common law. That is what Oliver Wendell Holmes would call a settee of professorships.

I might go on to trace the development of this study in various institutions, to show it has gradually been separated from the chair of philosophy and joined to that of history; how Ann Arbor and other western institutions have encouraged it from the beginning; how in some

of the leading universities it is given not a part of the time of one professor, but all the time of several; how political science, at least in its rudiments, is taught in more than 2,500 institutions in this country, and how the publications of workers in this field are becoming more and more numerous and more and more useful. Yet I take it that if the tale were fully told we should be disappointed at the smallness of the amount that is done as compared with the amount that obviously needs doing. The achievements of our colleges and universities in this direction have not fulfilled the promise of the early years of the republic, nor the wishes and hopes of our early leaders. There appear to be two main reasons for this state of things.

The first reason is that, administrative and industrial problems have not, until recently, been pressing. With unoccupied land, undeveloped resources, and no need of a standing army, we could trust indolently to the divinity that is said to care for fools, children and the United States. Emerson says that "men are as lazy as they dare to be" and we have found it easier and pleasanter to hurrah than to think, to let the eagle scream than to let our couscience speak. But I suspect that the time has come when we are beginning to remember that there is a place known as a "fool's paradise," and to wonder if possibly we have been living there. Professor, now President Charles Kendall Adams, asks these questions among others when referring to American contempt for all forms of European governmental machinery: "Is it certain that our municipal governments are better than theirs? Are our systems of taxation more equitably adjusted than theirs? Do our public and private corporations have greater respect for the rights of the people than theirs? Can we maintain that our legislatures are more free from bribery and corruption than theirs?" Dropping the comparison with Europe I would go on to ask if we have indeed excluded corporations from politics by putting them beyond government control? Are trusts desirable, and if not, what are we going to do about it? The same of pools? Is trades unionism desirable, and if not, how is the laborer to defend himself? What reply can we make to the exaggerated but half plausible statement that only the rich can escape justice and only the poor can obtain it? Are we entirely certain that we shall eliminate anarchy by hanging a few anarchists?

These and questions like them are beginning to be recognized as

questions for even this country, and perhaps this country especially, to face. In this state of affairs President Adams is right in saying that our people want "not political cant but political candor; not eloquent frivolities, but earnest discussion." Under these circumstances the study of political science will be pushed. longer-we do no longer, ignore the need of it.

We can no

But however much popular indolence and indifference may have had to do with the neglect of political science in our schools and colleges, I think that the chief hindrance to its more extended cultivation was the unsatisfactory state of the science itself. When Thomas Jefferson was planning with rare and almost startling liberality the course to be pursued at the university of Virginia he still thought that it would be advisable to prescribe some orthodox text book in this branch, though in the other departments the professors were allowed to choose their own. His republican soul revolted at the idea that any text book smacking of federalism should be tolerated. So he ruled out Blackstone in the department of law, and himself translated a text book on political economy from the French. His partisanship in this matter, his stickling for political and economic orthodoxy as he conceived it, is a sad example of a habit of which Americans are only just beginning to cure themselves. Sydney Smith tells us that "orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy." It has been so in this country regarding political economy. There was but one politico economic question that pressed for a solution and that was the question of protection vs. free trade. Two parties were accordingly formed, the free traders especially arrogating to themselves the title of orthodox economists. Their confession of faith was simple. "Do you believe that free competiton doeth all things well?" If you answered yes, you were admitted to a seat in the sanctuary; if you ventured to doubt, you were cast at once into an outer darkness supposed to be peopled only by sciolists, and cranks and demagogues.

In his recent address at Philadelphia Gen. Walker said that this classifying economists into two divisions, as protectionists and free traders, was no more sensible than it would be for men to range themselves as "war men" or "peace men," it being understood that a war man believed in war all the time, and sought every possible occasion for it; while the peace man would not go to war under any

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »