Newspaper Page Text
The People’s Party Paper
VOLUME 11.
JEFFERSON’S CREED.
ADDRESS
OF
THOS. E. WATSON,
Delivered at Douglasville, Georgia,
July 4tb, 1893.
Fellow Citizens: The 4th of July,
1893, is a day upon which the Amer
ican citizen can well afford to in
dulge in some reflection : some re
view of the past, some examination
of the present, some thought of the
future.
No man doubts that we have
reached a period when great changes
are hastening upon us. Vital issues
which have remained in the back
ground,— issues which have stood
for a generation like an armed force,
resting in line of battle, awaiting
the words “ Forward March,” are
now moving,—steadily moving, irre
sistibly moving,—to join battle with
their opposing Principles!
Every citizen owes it to himself to
study the methods by which he is
governed. Upon the law’s of the
land depend his property, his liberty,
his life. If oppressed by vicious leg
islation, there is no escape whatso
ever which he can devise by person
al industry, or frugality, or recti
tude. He becomes the helpless sub
ject of national tendencies w’hich no
individual is strong enough to resist.
Let us come together in the spirit
of those who seek to reason, to in
vestigate and to know the truth.
Citizens of a common country, we
surely want good laws, good gov
ernment. It surely must be the pur
pose of all of us, no matter to what
political faith we adhere, to see hon
esty, equity, and wisdom prevail; to
the end that the people may be
prosperous and happy.
Let us then upon this memorable
day sink the bigot into the student:
merge the partisan into the reasoner:
banish the politician, and give place
to the patriot.
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE A PROTEST
, AC- * INST sFU ROPir AN
Who framed this Government;
and upon what principles was it
founded ?
You may waste ever so many
hours poring over Stamp Acts ; you
may nod drearily through Webster’s
assertions that the Revolution was
fought upon a Preamble; you may
believe, because you have heard it so
often, that the American Colonies
cut loose from England because the
mother country insisted upon “taxa
tion without representation.”
All of which is true, but doesn’t
begin to touch the real point in the
case.
The pith and marrow and vital
spirit of the w’hole business went
vastly further.
Our ancestors came here protest
ing against the order of things in the
old world. They were kickers : pio
neers of a new’ creed, seeking a new
country in which to plant it. They
put the ocean between themselves
and the things they hated.
What were those things? •
Ist. A religious tyranny which
compelled them to support a faith
and a priesthood which they ab
horred.
2nd. A political tyranny which de
nied them the essential rights of
manhood.
Combatting the savages and the
wilderness, these stout-hearted An
glo-Saxons gradually grew strong.
And in exact proportion to their
growth in strength, they showed
their dislike of the European forms
of Government.
Nearly every township in the Col
onies was a small Republic,—teach
ing Democracy, practicing Democ
racy, and drifting steadily to the
time when the ideas of that Democ
racy must meet in a death grapple
with the ideas of the English Mon
archy.
Jn 1774, those small republics,
scattered along the coast from Maine
to Georgia, thought the time had
come to test the question as to who
•was the “ best man”—Democracy or
Monarchy.
The Stamp Act, and all conceiva
ble Preambles, were mere incidents,
or precipitants to the conflict. The
issue at stake was the vital difference
between the principles which pre
vailed on the different sides of the
Atlantic.
Such a difference was certain to
lead to a tight sooner or later, Pre
amble or no Preamble.
THE OBJECTS AIMED AT BY OUR
CONSTITUTION.
Democracy fought, suffered and
won.
Casting off European forms, it
fashioned a Government which still
endures.
When our forefathers wrote down
those articles of agreement and con
tract, which we call the Constitu
tion of the United States, they pre
faced it by stating that it was done
in,order to “form a more perfect
Union, establish justice, insure do-
JjL'CqpAieil to uA.ll Special Privileges to None.”
mostic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the gen
eral welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our pos
terity”
We are the posterity.
We are the legatees to whom they
bequeated “justice, domestic tran
quility, general w’elfare and the bless
ings of liberty.”
Magnificent bequest!
Let us look into the treasure-chest
to-day; let us make inventory of our
political goods and ch, landts
and tenements and Ascertain how
much of the estate wt still possess.
The executor was ever a good man
to watch : let us see how much of the
trusts has been convey d to his own
use rather than to ours.
Learned authors tell us that there
have never been more than .three
kinds of government; the Monarchy,
the Aristocracy, the Democracy.
Monarcy is the government of a
single ruler; and it may be absolute
or limited.
Aristocracy is the government of
a favored class, which exercises all
the pow’er and gets all ahe benefits,
and absorbs all the privilege.
Democracy is the rule of all the
people; it may be exercised by the
people them selves or by their agents.
In the latter case it is called a Re
public.
In theory our Government is
founded upon the Principle that all
he people rule:—no monarch, no
aristocracy, no privileged class. The
country being so large that it is im
possible for the citizens to transact
their governmental affairs in person,
they adopted the plan of selecting
agents, or Representatives.
Thus ours is a Republic based
upon the idea that the people govern
themselves.
ENEMIES TO DEMOCRACY.
From the very foundation of the
Government, this Democratic princi
ple has had its mortal enemies. Dur
ing the war of the Revolution, they
sought to neutralize the efforts of
our armies, and to keep America in
subjection to the King and the Aris
tocracy of England.
After our Independence was es
tablished, there we’-* ’.hose who
F'ought th/> E.; 3 ’L:i XG a o 2 Gov- '
ernment was best; and they exerted
every energy to have our Constitu
tion modelled after a limited Mon
archy, with its privileged class.
Although they failed, their failure
was far from complete. Our Senate
is really a House of Lords, almost
entirely out of touch with the people:
while our Federal Judges are com
pletely independent of the theoretical
sovereign of the land—the people.
As soon an the Constitution was
adopted, over the strenuous objec
tion of some of the ablest and purest
statesmen of the time, because
they considered it too centralizing
and undemocratic, the men who
had done so much to fetter its demo
cratic principles, at once began to
seek Congressional legislation which
would utterly transform our Govern
ment ; legislation which would infuse
the spirit of monarchy, of aristoc
racy, of class rule, into the body pol
itic of the Republic,
The leader of these enemies of the
Democratic principles was Alexander
Hamilton. He laid down the law
for them then, and his ideas control
them now. Wherever special Privi
leges are asked for favored industries,
Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures
is ransacked for arguments. When
ever Legislation intended for the
building up of a moneyed aristocracy
as a partner in tho Government is
desired by capitalists, Hamilton’s
plea for the National Bank is trotted
out. Whenever tho speculator de
mands the turning of the Paper
Money, which pays no interest, into
Bonds, which do pay interest,’ and
which form the basis of Banker’s
money, (which also fetches interest,)
Hamilton’s ideas on Funding come
to the front.
THE APOSTLE OF DEMOCRACY.
The leader of the other side was
Thomas Jefferson.
From the beginning to the end of
his career he was the chief Apostle
of the common people. Though an
aristocrat by birth, and a man of
wealth, special Privilege aroused his
inveterate hatred. Class distinctions
were his abomination. The equality
of all men before the law : the right
of every citizen to be secure from
the spoliation of unjust taxes: the
absolute freedom of speech, of
thought, and of action: the integrity
of individual rights as against cen
tralization in government, or monop
oly in business, were the fundamen
tal articles of his creed.
Entering the Virginia Legislature
at au early age, his first assault was
made upon the Land Monopoly which
there existed in the form of Entailed
Estates. Against the bitterest op
position upon the part of the aris
tocracy of the Old Dominion, he un
shackled the soil of Virginia from
its feudal chains, and threw it upon
the market, where it would necessa
rily be divided i>p among smaller
holders.
Following this law he passed an
other, destroying Primogeniture—the
right of the child to inherit
ATLANTA, GA., FRIDAY, JULY 7, 1893.
the entire estate. This principle has
always been dear to the aristocracy,
because it keeps the estate together :
encourages accumulation and pre
vents distribution.
The law of Entails, coupled with
the law of Primogeniture, had al
ready established in Virginia a land
ed gentry, proud, idle and arrogant,
fashioned upon the model of the
English nobility, and seeking to im
itate its style.
Jefferson hated this system with
implacable aversion, and he destroyed
it.
Another evil he remedied, while
in the Legislature.
Ila found the Episcopal Church in
partnership with the State. The tax
payers, no matter what their relig
iou&faith, were taxed to maintain the
Episcopal clergy. So naturally do
principles go together, that the good
old State of Virginia, after imitating
England upon the Land system,
quite as a matter of course, copied
her on the ecclesiastical question.
The Land Monopoly and the Church
Monopoly were having a gay time
in copartnership.
Jefferson broke it up. The Epis
copal Church was divorced from the
State Treasury, and made to earn its
living just as the other churches had
to do.
He likewise secured the adoption
of a thorough system of common
schools. “ Trust the people : teach
the people,” were two of the strong
est pillars upon which he sought to
rest the splendid fabric of popular
government.
The Aristocracy of Virginia, both
lay and clerical, hated Jefferson with
intense hatred the balance of his life.
In the eyes of these high born crea
tures who had been ousted from
their special privileges and plaeed on
a footing with common mortals, Mr.
Jefferson was a Demagogue, an in
cendiary, a stirrer up of strife —ar
raying the poor against the rich, for
base political purposes.
Such was his magnificent work in
the Virginia Legislature—a monu
ment to his worth, loftier than sculp
tor could raise, and more enduring
than marble or brass.
One other piece of/work
Reformer attempted.
He tried to abolish slavery.
Would to God he had succeeded !
The million men who butchered
each other in battle would never have
left their fields, their shops, * their
homes.
The fearful legacy of sectional
hate would never have been ours.
The billions of treasure wasted in
causing misery, would have been a
blessed offering in the Temples of
Peace.
Shylock’s opportunity never would
have come, as it did come, when tnh
Government found itself forced to
borrow from its own selfish specula
tors and had to submit to the infa
mous exactions of the New York,
Boston and Philadelphia Bankers.
The professional politician, North
and South, never would have beee
furnished, free of cost, with a stock
in trade which would last him thirty
years; and upon which he could
thrive, dominate and destroy, upon
the sole condition that if he lived
North he should curse the South,
and if he lived South he should
curse the North.
FEDERALISM AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
When Jefferson entered national
politics he found Hamilton develop
ing his schemes and carefully laying
his plans. Both of these able men
belonged to Washington’s cabinet.
Jefferson was Secretary of State;
Hamilton Secretary of the Treasury.
Almost immediately the irreconcila
ble differences of opinion appeared.
The contest between them being one
of vital principles, it raged during
all of Wasnington’s time, all of Ham
ilton’s life, all of Jefferson’s life; it
has raged ever since ; it rages now,
and it will continue to rage as long
as this Republic endures. For, state
it as you will, it is the everlasting
hostility which, in every wealthy
community, arises between the
masses and the classes; between the
privileged and the unprivileged ; be
tween the rich, trying to establish
Aristocracy, and the middle and low
er classes, determined that Democ
racy shall never die.
The creed of Hamilton was the
basis upon which stood the political
organization called the Federal
Party.
What were its principles ?
They believed that the English
Monarchy was the most perfect form
of government known to man, and
they wished ours to resemble it as
far as possible. They wished the
Federal government to grow at the
expense of the States. They sought
to create a moneyed aristocracy by
means of a Bond system and Na
tional Banks. They’ wished to spe
cially foster manufactures by legisia
tive protection. They wanted a
strong, consolidated nation, sustained
by powerful military and naval
forties.
In short, the Federalists had no
faith in the people ; no belief in pop
ular self-government.
H. C. Lodge, in his work on
Hamilton, says that his purpose in
creating the Funding System and the
National Bank, was not less political
than financial.
His plan was to ‘ bind the wealthy
men, being at th?’ 4 ' day the aristocra
cy bequeathed by provincial times,
to the new system, and thus assure
to the property of the country the
control of the Government.”
In other words, Hamilton wanted
the Dollar to rule this land—not the
people I
Mr. Lodge is fr mk enough to say
that Hamilton had endeavored to in
troduce a Class influence into the
Constitution at tee time it was
framed, by limiting the suffrage for
the President and Senate with a
property qualification.
Failing in this direct attempt to
establish Class rule in the organic
law, he immediately went to work to
devise other means of doing it. His
Funding System and his National
Bank was the result.
The Creed of Jefferson became
the basis of a political organization
known during his lire as the Repub
lican Party. He gave it that name
himself, and always spoke of it by
that title.
What were its articles of faith ?
I will quote them from its illustri
ous founder. lu each instance, I
will give you the words of Jefferson
himself.
JEFFERSON’S DOCTRINES.
In his first Inaugural Address he
laid down this “ Golden Rule” of
Government:—
“A wise and frugal government,
which shall restrain men from injur
ing one another, which shall leave
them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and im
provement ; and shall not take from
labor the bread it has earned. This
is the sum of good Government.”
Further he said, in words which
have become venerated wherever the
principles of Democr, ey are cher
ished:
“Equal and exact justice to all
men, of whatever state or persuasion,
religious or political; peace, com
merce, and honest friendship with ail
iiat’, enta/gling with
, law Hupport ot Slate gov
ernments in all their rights as the
most competent administration for
our domestic concerns and the surest
bulwark against anti-republican ten
dencies ; the preservation of the gen
eral government in all its constitu
tional vigor as the sheet-anchor of
peace at home and safety abroad ; a
jealous care of the right of election
by the people ; a mild and safe cor
rective of abuses wiich are lopped
by the sword of revolution where
peaceable remedies tre unprovided ;
absolute acquiescence in the decision
of the majority, the vital principles
of the republic, frorr which there is
no appeal but to force, the vital prin
ciple and immediate parent of des
potism ; a well-discplined militia;
economy in the publis expenses, that
labor may be lightly burdened ; the
honest payment of oir debts, and sa
cred preservation of he public faith ;
encouragement of agriculture, and of
commerce, its handnaid; the diffu
sion of information, ind the arraign
ment of all abuses al the bar of pub
lic reason ; freedom »f religion ; free
dom of the preis; freedom of the
person under the prcection of habeas
corpus, and trial by juries impartial
ly selected—these pinciples form the
high constellation vhich has gone
before us, and guied our footsteps
through an age of rvolution and re
formation.”
Listen to these father words :
“ Men by their constitutions are
naturally divided ito two parties:
those who fear anedistrust the peo
ple, and wish to driv all power from
them into the hads of the higher
classes; those whe identify them
selves with the peple, have confi
dence in them, chesh aud consider
them as the most honest and safe,
although not the n>st wise, deposit
ors of the public irtjrestß. In every
country these two arties exist.”
Hon. W. L. Wilm, of West Vir
ginia, one of the blest and purest
Democrats now hug, thus summa
rizes the principle of the Republi
can Party foundedby Thomas Jef
ferson : '
1. Opposition t*the Funding Sys
tem.
2. Opposition tche National Bank.
3. Opposition tthe Internal Rev
enue, or Excise Sstem.
4. Opposition o the Protective
Tariff.
5. Opposition > centralization in
the Federal GoVnment at the ex
pense of State Jghts.
6. OppositiorP Hamilton’s plans
to foster the class, and to
build up an alli*ce between the cap
italists and
This is a faiitatement from Page
59 of Mr. Wbn’s “ Historj’ of the
National Party.”
These wer Jefferson’s remedies
for Hamiltonpoisons. These were
the breast-w<p be erected to check
the Federal Aristocracy. These
were the pjCiples which were to
preserve to “ people the freedom
their father had won : and these
were the piciples which were al-
i ways dear to the followers of Jeffer
-3 son as long as desire to be right wa
-1 stronger than the love of office.
TESTING THE PRESENT BY THE PAST.
On July 4th, 1826, this great
statesman died. Two generations
’ have come and gone, since he folded
' his hands in eternal rest.
The Government which he did so
much to establish, still survives. A
political Party which professes to
follow his teachings, is in full pos
session of every branch of the Ad
ministration.
’ Its platform of Principles recently
revised, repaired and replenished, is
’ known to all the world. Its Policies
are beiug outlined by its Leaders,
and being debated by all classes of
citizens.
Let us to-day do ourselves the jus
’ tice to firmly investigate our politi
cal status.
Let us without the assistance of
Beef-Tea, or other doubtful com
pound, imagine that we are all Cobbs,
of Alabama, and anxious to know
“ WHERE ARE WE AT ? ”
What were the evils Jefferson most
feared ?
We have already seen how he
dreaded Slavery. Wisely did he
foretell its consequences.
In the year 1821, he said that
“the public mind would not bear”
his proposition, made in 1776, for
gradual Emancipation. “ Nor will
it bear it, even at this day”—(lß2l.)
“ But the day is not distant” contin
ued the prophet, “ when the public
mind must bear it, and adopt it, or
worse will follow ! Nothing is more
certainly written in the book of fate
than that these people are to be
free.”
Knowing how terribly correct was
his foresight upon this subject, his
warnings upon other subjects in
crease in importance.
Jefferson’s fears.
1. He foresaw the dangers of the
Funding and National Banking Sys
tems. He saw that Hamilton en
couraged the speculators to gather u j
all the paper money, which they
bought for a song, upon his intima
tion that they might exchange it dol
i&x for av.l.w, xor
bearing a high rate of interest. He
denounced this Funding scheme as a
plot to get the money and the wealth
of the country into the hands of a
favored few. The National Bank
was even more pernicious. Listen to
his words. In a letter to Mr. Galla
tin, in 1803, he writes :
“This institution (National Bank)
is one of the most deadly hostility
existing against the principles and
form of our. Government. * * *
Ought we then to give further growth
to an institution so powerful, so hos
tile? ** * Now, while we are
strong, it is the greatest duty we owe
to the safety of our Constitution to
bring this powerful enemy to a per
fect subordination under its authori
ties. The first measure would 4>e to
reduce them to an equal footing with
other banks, as to the favors of the
Government. But, in order to be
able to meet a combination of the
banks against us, in a critical emer
gency, could we not make a begin
ning towards an independent use of
our own money through the Govern
ment’s sub-Treasuries ?”
He predicted that the special fa
vors granted by the Government to
the National Bankers would result in
creating an aristocracy of Capital,
which would dominate legislation,
corruptly influence elections, and
subsidize the press.
But while he thus denounced Na
tional Banks, he was still severer upon
State Banks.
In his famous letter to Jno. W.
Eppes, he entered into an elaborate
discussion of the dangers, the rascal
ities, the corrupting influences, and
the swindling rapacities of State
Banks. I mean, of course, State
Banks of Issue.
Mr. Jefferson writes: * * “And
so the Nation may continue to issue
its bills as far as its wants require,
and the limits of circulation will ad
, mit. Those limits are understood to
extend with us, at present, to $200,-
000,000.
“Bit this, the only resource which
the Government can command with
certainty, the States have unfor
tunately fooled away, nay corruptly
alienated to swindlers and shavers,
' under the cover of private banks.
“But although we have so improvi
k dently suffered the field of circulating
medium to be filched from us by pri
vate individuals, yet I think we may
recover it if the States will co-oper
ate with us.” * * *
In another letter he sums up the
whole matter by saying, that the ob
ject of these private banks of issue
“is to enrich swindlers at the expense
of the honest and industrious part of
the nation.”
JEFFERSON'S FINANCIAL PLANS.
What then, were Jefferson’s finan
cial doctrines ?
1. He believed in the free and un
limited Coinage of Silver and Gold.
His report to that effect was the law
of the land from 1792 till 1873. The
ratio was slightly altered, once, but
the principle was never violated until
NUMBER 42
John Sherman, the Republican, and
fhos. F. Bayard, the Democrat, de
monetized Silver in 1873. On
page 1150 of the Congressional
Globe, part 2, second session, 42d
Congress (1872-73) you will find the
proofs of what I say. Mr. Bayard’s
name is signed to the Conference
Report which struck down Silver,
just as John Sherman’s is signed.
2. He believed in a direct issue of
Treasury Notes by the Government,
in a quantity as great as the needs of
the hour demanded, and the channels
of circulation could hold. In 1803, he
said the limit of the Treasury Notes
the country could stand was $200,-
000,000.
Since that time the population and
the business have increased more
than ten fold. Therefore, the coun
try could now carry, without depre
ciation, Two Billions of Dollars of
Treasury Notes, according to Jeffer
son’s own figures.
How many do they actually give
us?
Only $346,000,000, nA one-fifth of
what Jefferson said we coiucCSTifely
carry.
All the balance of our paper money
is merely representative of coin which
does not circulate.
To bring conviction to any one
who doubts Jefferson’s position on
this most important matter, let me
quote him further.
In devising a means by which the
Government might drive State Bank
money out of circulation, he says in
the Eppes letter, already mentioned :
“If Treasury bills are emitted, on
a tax appropriated for their redemp
tion in fifteen years, and (to insure
their preference in the first moments
of competition—with the notes of the
State Bankers) bearing interest at 6
per cent, there is no one who would
not take them in preference to the
Bank paper now afloat. * * * I’his
credit once established, others might
be emitted, bottomed also on a tax,
but not bearing interest; and even if
their credit faltered, open public
loans, on which these bills alone
should be received” as specie. These,
operating as a sinking fund, would
reduce the quantity in circulation, so
as ‘to maintain v hat ru equilibrium,
with specie. ” ‘
This language is so plain, its mean
ing so clear, the financial plan out
lined so undeniable, that I shall not
take the trouble to quote other pas
sages in other documents, to the
same effect.
Mr. Jefferson believed that Money
was a National agent; -should be
created by the National Government
and for the use of the Nation. He
scoured the idea that this tremendous
power should be farmed out to pri
vate individuals, for private purposes,
in order that one Class might fatten
upon all the others.
Nor did he see the logic of the po
sition that it was wrong for the Gov
ernment to create money “by getting
a machine to work and stamping it,”
but entirely proper for the Govern
ment to allow thousands of Bankers
to “get their machines to work and
stamp it” by the millions.
It is only a non-Partisan” camp
follower of these later days who can
see the 'loveliness of such logic as
that, and flop down upon his supple
knees and cry “Hosanna!”
EVILS FORETOLD.
But the main question is, has Jef
ferson’s warning proved to have been
well founded ? Was he right when
he said the National were in
stitutions of deadly hostil.ty to the
spirit of our Government ? Was he
right when he foretold that they
would create an aristocrary of wealth,
which would dictate the policies and
the legislation of this country ?
The evidences which meet us upon
every hand, show that his statements
were not only true, but appallingly
true.
Obtaining their supply of money
from the Government at 1 per cent,
lending it to the business men at from
8 to 20 per cent, clothed with the
. enormous advantage of contracting
, and expanding the volume of curren
cy at pleasure, the National Banks
have had, since the war, the most
amazing opportunities of making
money at the expense of the masses
of the people that any Government
ever granted to a favored class.
CORRUPT LEGISLATION.
Their net gain from this special
privilege, granted them at the ex
pense of the people at large, have
equalled the enormous average of
150,000,000 per year for the last
twenty-five years.
Who doubts that they have cor
ruptly controlled legislation ?
How else can you explain the laws
and the policies which have been
adopted in their favor?
Who believes it was right to pay
them the interest on their Bonds in
advance ?
Who believes it was right to change
the contract with them so that they
c©uld demand payment in coin ?
Who believes it was right to say
that the Treasury notes of the United
States Government should be good
enough for the merchant, the farmer,
the lawyer, the doctor, but should