Oration: The American Mind

by Charles W. Lyons

“It is clear, therefore,” he adds, “that the binding validity of all constitutions is based on tacit and expressed agreement and consent.”

And although Elizabeth had asserted in 1585 that “kings and princes sovereign owe their homage and service only to Almighty God,” and James defended the Divine Right of Kings, and the University of Cambridge, in its address to Charles II, had declared that they believed and maintained that “our kings derive not their title from the people but from God,” “Defenders of Liberty” were not wanting, Bellarmine declaring boldly, as Sir Robert Filmer tells us, that “secular or civil power is instituted by men; it is in the people unless they bestow it on a prince. This power is immediately in the whole multitude as in the subject of it. For this power is in the Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this power to no particular men; if the positive law be taken away, there is left no reason why amongst a multitude (who are equal) one rather than another should bear rule over the rest. Power is given by the multitude to one man or to more by the same law of nature; for the commonwealth cannot exercise this power, therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some one man or some few. It depends upon the consent of the multitude to ordain over themselves a king or consul or other magistrates. And if there be a lawful cause, the multitude may change the kingdom into an aristocracy or democracy.”

These thoughts and emotions, expressed and re-expressed by the writers, philosophers and political leaders of their day, had seeped down through the ages unactuated, mere themes for academic speculation, until they filtered into the minds and souls of those simple, yet truly great men, who, in signing the Declaration of Independence, gave birth to the nation we so rightfully cherish and so lovingly serve.

In a letter to his friend Henry Lee, dated May 8, 1825, Jefferson, as if in confirmation of what we have just held, notes that the object of the Declaration of Independence was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never before been said; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular or previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”

What, then, was this American mind, that, amid problems vexed and theories varied, had sifted the wisdom and folly of the past, discerning the true from the false, the good from the evil, and “of which,” Jefferson was pleased to say, “the Declaration of Independence was intended to be an expression?” And what, again, was “the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion” that the Declaration of Independence was to give to this expression of the American mind?

If we look more closely at the type of men whose united action founded our nation the answer to this question will not be far to seek. They, like many of us here today, were either immigrants or the immediate descendants of immigrants. They differed in origin, in education, in race, and in creed. They had the traditions, the affections, the prejudices of their times and of their peoples. Yet in common they had left home and country, led on by a vision or an ideal that made a fitting basis for the union that was to come. They would break away from an effete civilization; they would start life anew, freed from the tyranny of unjust laws; they would enjoy liberty to worship their God according to the dictates of their own conscience; they would exercise, without unwarranted interference, their natural and inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

Crossing, as they did, the same unknown seas, buffeted by the same winds and waves, coming to the same uncultivated, though not inhospitable shores, their difficulties, their interests, their common foe, drew them together in mutual helpfulness, in united enterprise, and in common defense.

Thus they came to know one another; thus they learned to bear with one another; thus they grew to love one another; and understanding, and tolerance, and brotherly love developed the American mind. So that, when the occasion arose, in proper tone and spirit, it expressed itself in the immortal Declaration of Independence that solved the speculative problems of the past, secured full enjoyment of liberty for its people, and gave hope and inspiration to all mankind and for all time.

And shall we mar the beauty of her gift? Shall we, forgetting our common interests, our common enterprises, our common foes, destroy the unity of purpose and of action that is essential for individual and national prosperity? Shall we, by misunderstanding, by intolerance and hatred, sully the luster of our heritage, breaking the bondage of brotherhood?

Ours is a most responsible trust. We must hand it down to posterity sacred and intact. Capital must make truce with labor; labor must make pact with capital; each must measure even in the scales of justice. The rights—inalienable rights—of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, must not be infringed. The rights—natural and civic rights—of property must not be denied. Class prejudices, racial pride, assumed superiority, must be dislodged from the minds of men, that justice may function and equality and the dignity of human nature be sustained.