Read an Excerpt
The Moral Basis of Democracy
By Eleanor Roosevelt OPEN ROAD INTEGRATED MEDIA
Copyright © 1940 Eleanor Roosevelt
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4976-6365-7
CHAPTER 1
At a time when the whole world is in a turmoil and thousands of people are homeless and hungry, it behooves all of us to reconsider our political and religious beliefs in an effort to clarify in our minds the standards by which we live.
What does Democracy mean to any of us? What do we know of its history? Are there any religious beliefs which are essential to the Democratic way of life?
All of these things have been considered and written about, by many historians. I could not possibly write with as wide a background of historical or philosophical knowledge, but I am hoping in this little book to be able to give a clearer definition of the thinking of one citizen in a Democracy. By so doing it may be possible to stimulate the thoughts of many people so that they will force themselves to decide what Democracy means to them — whether they can believe in it as fervently as they can in their personal religion; whether it is worth sacrifice to them, and what they consider that sacrifice must be.
Our Democracy in this country had its roots in religious belief, and we had to acknowledge soon after its birth that differences in religious belief are inherent in the spirit of true Democracy. Just because so many beliefs flourished side by side, we were forced to accept the fact that "a belief" was important, but "what belief" was important only to the individual concerned. Later it was accepted that an individual in this land of ours had the right to any religion, or to no religion. The principle, however, of the responsibility of the individual for the well-being of his neighbors which is akin to: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," in the New Testament, seems always to have been a part of the development of the Democratic ideal which has differentiated it from all other forms of government.
Today, as we look at the various philosophies of government under which people live, the totalitarian state makes the individual of little importance. What he means to the state is paramount. Under the communist ideal the individual again disappears in the group. Under present conditions both theories of government — the Nazi and the Communist — are practically the same. The will of one man, a dictator, seems to become the will of the state, and because people are not considered as individuals, they merge their will in devotion and submission to the force of the state and of the man who is the symbol of power.
This conception of the state emasculates the fundamental idea of self-confidence which arises out of individual liberty and for which men have died. Instead, as in the old days when the serf depended on his master, these new serfs depend on their leaders. They live well or ill, in proportion to the degree to which they conform to the will of the master. This was equally true of the medieval barons and their serfs.
The Democratic theory of government and of life in a Democracy opposes one-man rule, and holds to the belief that the individual controls his government through active participation in the process of political Democratic government, but bows to the will of the majority, freely expressed. The motivating force of the theory of a Democratic way of life is still a belief that as individuals we live co-operatively, and, to the best of our ability, serve the community in which we live, and that our own success, to be real, must contribute to the success of others.
I think this belief can be more firmly grounded through a study of the past, and the principles on which we are now charting our future course can be more clearly defined through a better understanding of the development of Democracy in other countries and eventually in our own.
Therefore, very briefly, we will take a look back into the past.
CHAPTER 2
Up to the year 1500, there is little or no evidence that anybody gave any thought whatever to the theories of Democracy, but certain basic acts paved the way for the development of practical and theoretical Democracy.
The Magna Charta was the first document drawn up on the theory of Democracy and many of its provisions are now of no more than historical interest. There are, however, many articles which are of continuing importance and current interest. For instance: No taxes shall be imposed except by common counsel. No man shall be imprisoned, exiled or destroyed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one is right or justice sold or refused. All persons except outlaws or prisoners are free to come and to go, free to buy and to sell, except in time of war.
One of the most important provisions in the Magna Charta is that "The English Church shall be free and shall have her rights entire and her liberties inviolate." Many of the articles in it were directed against the abuses of the power of the King and against many grievances which existed because of feudal tenures.
In 1628 a Petition of Rights was signed, and in 1689 a Bill of Rights was signed.
From 1500 to 1700 in Europe, the development was very slow, but the idea of Democracy seemed to be steadily germinating. By 1750 the idea was firmly implanted in the minds of certain radical thinkers — radical, of course, for their period.
The first real growing pains of Democracy might be considered to spring from English oppression, primarily oppression of religious minority groups, which forced certain free thinkers in England to take refuge first in Holland, which was a tolerant country, but where life was none too easy, and later in the new world across the sea. This land was talked about as the place where one could carve out a future according to new, liberal ideas even though one still owed allegiance to the King of England. These daring and adventurous souls decided to embark upon new careers with no idea of what awaited them.
These Brownists, who later were known as Pilgrims, were only one group of the many people who suffered persecution in Europe in the seventeenth century during the general wave of intolerance that brought about the democratic results. In England Catholics had been harassed by Thomas Cromwell, and Protestants by Mary Tudor. From 1629 to 1640 Puritan and Catholic families fled to America, and when the Stuarts were restored in 1660 the exodus was renewed, with such sects as the Quakers joining the emigration.
It is interesting to us, in our study of our Mayflower ancestors, to realize what a long way they had to go before they could come to the crystallization of the Democratic theory through the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
The first Mayflower Contract, signed in the Mayflower before the Pilgrims landed in this country provided:
"We, whose names are underwritten, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, etc., from time to time as shall be thought most fair and convenient for the general good of the colony to which we promise all due submission and obedience." The interest to me in this first document is the acceptance of self-discipline.
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut provided that: "there shall be two yearly general assemblies, one in April and one in September. The first shall be called the Court of Election wherein so many magistrates and other public officers shall be chosen, one to be chosen governor for the ensuing year or until another governor shall be chosen, and always six others beside the governor who shall have the power to administer justice according to the laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the rule of the Word of God. This choice shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and have taken the oath of fidelity and live within this jurisdiction.
"Every person present and qualified for choice shall bring in to persons deputed to receive them, one single paper on which is written the name of the man he desires to have as governor, and he who has the greatest number of papers shall be governor for that year.
"For the others to be elected, the secretary shall read the names and nominate them and everyone shall bring in one single paper with a name written on it, and the one who receives the most written papers, is elected for that year.
"No person shall be chosen governor above one in two years, and the governor must be a member of some approved congregation.
"The general court in September shall be for making laws and any other public occasion, which concerns the good of the commonwealth.
"Each town is empowered to send four freemen as deputies and such deputies shall have power to give their votes to all such laws and orders as may be for the public good and these laws shall bound the towns.
"Such deputies shall have the power and liberty to appoint a time and place of meeting together to advise and consult on all such things as many concern the good of the public, to examine their own elections, and if they are found illegal they may be excluded from the meetings. These deputies to have the power to fine any one who was disorderly at the meetings, for not coming in due time.
"The General Court to consist of the governor, or someone chosen to moderate the court and four other magistrates at least with the major part of the deputies of the several towns legally chosen. If the governor and the major part of the magistrates refuse or neglect to call a court, it shall consist of the major part of freemen that are present or their deputies with a moderator chosen by them. Said General Court shall have power to make laws, or repeal them, grant levies, admit freemen, dispose of lands, and may deal in any other matter that concerns the good of the commonwealth except election of magistrates which shall be done by the whole body of freemen.
"In this court the governor or moderator shall have power to order the court, to give liberty of speech, and silence unreasonable and disorderly speaking, to put all things to vote and in the case of a tie vote, have the casting vote. The courts shall not be adjourned or dissolved without the consent of the major part of the court.
"The court may agree on sum or sums of money to be levied on the several towns within its jurisdiction, and a committee chosen to decide what shall be the proportion of every town of the levy, provided the committee be made up of an equal number from each town." Here we find mentioned for the first time "The rule of the Word of God."
The Fundamental Articles of Rhode Island stated that those who had signed their names, promised to subject themselves in obedience to all orders or agreements which were made for the public good, in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present inhabitants incorporated together into a town fellowship.
This compact in some ways resembles the Mayflower Compact, except that in the above, obedience is promised in civil things only, and the term civil is used in contradistinction to ecclesiastical. Obedience is promised in matters pertaining to the state and not to those pertaining to the church.
William Penn's Limited Democratic State was extreme republicanism. He abolished all rules of inheritance, gave all the power to the people to initiate and repeal laws, reserving no veto for himself. All taxes were to be collected by law, the courts were to be open and no oaths required. Penalties were light, capital punishment abolished except for murder (this was remarkable because there were two hundred offenses in the English law which carried the death sentence), prisons were to be workhouses and all children taught a useful trade. All those who professed faith in Jesus Christ were to be eligible to office, and all who confessed an Almighty God were to have free exercise of their worship. In some respects this document was changed, but the one feature to which Penn clung tenaciously was wide religious liberty. The faith in Jesus Christ as here expressed is, I think, the beginning of an idea that this faith would influence the life of the individual and make him better able to meet Penn's standards as a citizen.
Americans led the way in the development of Democracy, and through the first three-quarters of the eighteenth century, certain men developed the thought of the people of this country, and prepared for the Revolutionary War. The Revolutionary War in this country was the first real proof that the theory of Democracy could command the loyalty of a body of citizens and did not require an individual as a ruler to tie the government together.
These "radicals" who prepared for our Revolution were Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and James Otis.
Thomas Paine is, of course, best known for his writings. His pamphlet "Common Sense," arguing for the separation of the American colonies, published in 1776, had powerful effect. This was the first time the republican doctrines in politics which were inseparable from the individualist trend of the Protestant Reformation in religion had been put down in popular form. He gave practical ideas of representative government, and almost at once the theory upon which our government was to be laid was in every man's mind.
Paine's "The Rights of Man," published in parts, the first in 1791, stated the fundamental principles for representative republicanism, in language which everyone could understand, and so cheaply that everyone could read it. The tide of opinion was caught, and "The Rights of Man" made Paine the leader of the republicans in France and the radicals in England.
"The Age of Reason" by Paine contrasts the Bible as absolute truth with the Bible in the light of scientific knowledge and the common sense of the time. It was a break with organized religion, in the train of thought that led to Unitarianism, and to such movements as the Ethical Culture Society. Paine wrote to be read by the people and the people read him. In self-protection the English and American church institutions turned Paine into the Devil himself. This embittered Paine and deprived the Republicans in America of the full use of his great experience and of his talents as a political commentator. Hitler's campaign against the Jews is comparable to the campaign in England against free-thinkers and infidels.
Patrick Henry urged the colonists to go to war on March 20, 1775, at the second convention assembled in Richmond, Virginia, and up to that time no public body or public man had openly spoken of a war with Great Britain. They had admitted that it was highly probable, but not inevitable. He proposed resolutions which were passed.
Samuel Adams was one of the most important men in the work which was done to convince the colonists that they were oppressed. He came into prominence with the passing of the Sugar Act in 1764. From this time almost every state paper in Massachusetts and the initiation of almost every great measure can be traced to him.
James Otis gained public notice by pleading the cause of the Writs of Assistance. His oratory sowed the seeds of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. He was an original political thinker and while he was an imperialist, it was upon natural law as conceived by Otis that the American Revolution was finally defended.
The results of this preparation of American thought flowered in such men as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason and the others who helped to write the Declaration of Independence and then to argue for its acceptance as the basis of the establishment of a new type of government.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were documents with completely different purposes. The Declaration of Independence embodies the beliefs in Democracy and the theories of the people of that day. The Constitution grew out of the practical minds of the men who fought the Revolution and who realized that they must consolidate the government of this small group of people, who had decided to be free, into something workable and unified.
The Constitution itself, argued out in the Constitutional Conventions of the day, shows the fears that many men had of Democracy. Many of its provisions tended to safeguard the state from too much power in the hands of the people. This brought about the demand for the Bill of Rights which contains the Amendments to guard the people's idea of Democracy, thus winning the adoption of the Constitution which created a nation.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Moral Basis of Democracy by Eleanor Roosevelt. Copyright © 1940 Eleanor Roosevelt. Excerpted by permission of OPEN ROAD INTEGRATED MEDIA.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
