Anglo-Saxon Solidarity

by Herbert Adams Gibbons

English is our national language. But this forms a strong bond only with Canada, where there is a constant intercourse among peoples and a constant exchange of books and periodicals. It is becoming a factor in our relations with Australia, also, because Australians read widely and with avidity popular American literature. But outside of a limited circle, which needs no conversion to Anglo-Saxon solidarity, few British and Americans come into personal contact, and the reciprocal purchase of books and magazines and newspapers is surprisingly small. Potentially, however, common language is a basis of solidarity. It is an asset in favor of those who are working to bring the English-speaking peoples together.

The practicable bases of Anglo-Saxon solidarity, which tercentenary orators could present with effect to all their compatriots, are common laws and spirit of administration of justice, similar development of democratic institutions, common ideals, and common interests. The first two are in a certain sense included in the third and fourth, and the fourth covers the first three. One appeals to the moral sense and to self-interest, and then, to clinch the argument, shows how idealism is in harmony with interest, as in the adage, "Honesty is the best policy."

In discussing the four bases of Anglo-Saxon solidarity, it must be remembered that the problem involves the direct relations between each two of the members of the English-speaking group of nations and between each English-speaking country and the colonies and possessions of the British Empire and the United States. The following table shows how wide a field Anglo-Saxon solidarity covers:

Great Britain and United States
Great Britain and Ireland
Ireland and United States
Great Britain and Canada
United States and Canada
Ireland and Canada
Great Britain and Australia
United States and Australia
Ireland and Australia
Canada and Australia
Great Britain and New Zealand
United States and New Zealand
Ireland and New Zealand
Canada and New Zealand
Australia and New Zealand
Great Britain and South Africa
United States and South Africa
Ireland and South Africa
Canada and South Africa
Australia and South Africa
New Zealand and South Africa
Great Britain and India and other possessions
United States and British possessions
Ireland and British possessions
Canada and British possessions
Australia and British possessions
New Zealand and British possessions
South Africa and British possessions
United States and her possessions
Great Britain and American possessions
Ireland and American possessions
Canada and American possessions
Australia and American possessions
New Zealand and American possessions
South Africa and American possessions
British possessions and American possessions

Thirty-six separate headings may seem on first glance useless repetition. But I ask my readers simply to take each heading, think for a minute, and there will arise in your mind some problem of Anglo-Saxon solidarity involving primarily the two parties coupled in each of the thirty-six headings. In fact, it is not difficult to find several sources of friction calling for adjustment under a single head. I have not space to enumerate. Nor have I increased the list by adding the new headings that might be justified by the new responsibilities of the British Empire through the acquisition—in complicated form because of division with self-governing dominions and the as yet unsettled limitations of mandates—of the former German colonies.

The years immediately ahead are years of great peril for Anglo-Saxon solidarity. The problems we must face and solve go so far beyond the matters dealt with by tercentenary orators that one feels the crying need of light and more light in considering the quadrangular character of relations between the different parts of Anglo-Saxondom—Great Britain, self-governing dominions, the United States, and the possessions and protectorates British and American. Japan? The Pacific? Tariffs and shipping? Sea-power? Status of the Near East and the German colonies? Panama Canal? Monroe Doctrine? League of Nations? Ireland? We cannot treat these matters only as questions between London and Washington affecting Anglo-American relations. Nor can Great Britain treat them that way. Both London and Washington are forced to take into consideration the self-governing dominions of the British Empire whose sentiments and interests give them a distinct point of view and program of their own. With the exception of South Africa, the self-governing dominions are, like the United States, the outgrowth of transplanted Anglo-Saxon civilization. It is natural that in mentality, and frequently in interests, they should be nearer us than the mother country. Canada and South Africa have important Caucasian elements that have not been under the influence of, and are antipathetic to, Anglo-Saxon culture. Australia's Irish rival ours in singing the hymn of hate against England.

The first basis of Anglo-Saxon solidarity is to create throughout Anglo-Saxondom the consciousness of unity in our conception of law and in the spirit of our administration of law. Just laws justly administered are the foundation of civilized society. Those who live under them prize them more highly than any other possession. No alien, whatever his origin, who comes to live under our dispensation fails to acknowledge the blessings of Anglo-Saxon law. Our laws and our courts are the outgrowth of centuries of English history and experience. They offer the greatest protection to the individual man and the widest possibility of individual freedom the world has ever known. Within recent years, if America meant to the immigrant "the home of the free," it was because of the scrupulous administration of justice according to the laws handed down to us by our Anglo-Saxon forebears. Similarly, the immigrant of continental European origin who went to a British colony was sure of a "square deal." Before the law he was the equal of any other man. Entering our society, he shared immediately the benefits of our most sacred heritage—free speech, free assembly, the habeas corpus act, and the principles of Anglo-Saxon law assured to Americans not only by custom and our system of jurisprudence, but by the first amendments to the Constitution. As far as laws and the administration of justice are concerned, the English-speaking countries have had a similar development, and have not severed this powerful link binding them to England more closely than common language.

If we can impress upon our fellow-citizens in the United States and Canada and South Africa and Ireland who are not of Anglo-Saxon origin or who have grown away from Anglo-Saxondom that throughout the English-speaking world we are maintaining the reign of English law and guarding jealously the constitutional liberties handed down to us from England, this precious basis of Anglo-Saxon solidarity will appeal to them, and they will help us to strengthen it. But there never has been a time in this country when the enemies of our Anglo-Saxon liberties have been so strong and so persistent. The cause of Anglo-Saxon solidarity is menaced by assaults from within. Public officials of the mentality of Attorney-General Palmer despise the Anglo-Saxon system of law and repudiate the traditions and customs of centuries.

Political institutions and jurisprudence go together. Although the American commonwealth has developed its political institutions with less strict adherence to English standards than in the case of jurisprudence, our modifications do not affect the spirit of what we have received, and the changes are only in detail. Representative government we received from England. When we fought the mother country it was to preserve our rights as Englishmen, which we did not believe had been forfeited by transplantation. The American War of Independence was a struggle to establish a principle that has been vital in the development of English-speaking countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa owe to us the possession of Anglo-Saxon liberties in new worlds without having had to fight for them. During the recent war British propagandists in the United States made much of the argument that the British Empire was fighting to secure the triumph of Anglo-Saxon polity against a different system that was both reactionary and aggressive, that Americans were as much interested as British in defending Anglo-Saxon polity, and that therefore the British Empire was fighting our battle. The argument was sound. It appealed to thoughtful men in the United States, and I believe history will show that our slogan when we did enter the war, "To make the world safe for democracy," was not a vain one.

The continental European who emigrates to white men's countries under the Anglo-Saxon form of government becomes, after naturalization, an equal partner with every other citizen. He votes. He is eligible for office. No argument is necessary to convince him of the advantages of living under Anglo-Saxon political institutions. If these institutions are properly administered, he appreciates them as highly as he appreciates Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. A basis of Anglo-Saxon solidarity that we can urge upon Americans who are deaf to the call of blood and culture is Anglo-Saxon polity. Every inhabitant of Anglo-Saxondom is interested in the maintenance and defense of the jurisprudence and polity under which he lives. Point out to him that English-speaking countries cannot afford to risk these precious possessions by being enemies and by pursuing antagonistic policies in this electrically charged post bellum world, and he will begin to see the common sense of a policy of rapprochement between Great Britain, her dominions, and ourselves.