The united American : a magazine of good citizenchip., April 01, 1926, Page 8, Image 8

April 1926
THE UNITED AMERICAN
Page Eight
The Making of American Citizens
A Comprehensive Review of America’s History and Political Institutions, of Particular Interest and Help to Those
Who are Studying for Naturalization and to Those Who Have Become American Citizens and Are Anxious to
Learn How They May Become Better Qualified to Protect and Defend the Country of Their Adoption.
By A. C. Strange, Oregon State Director of Americanization Schools
IV.
THE BUILDING OF THE
AMERICAN IDEA OF GOVERNMENT
T CANNOT in these letters tell a complete story of
1 how government in England and America Game
to rest upon self-control rather than upon control,
came to depend upon the power of each citizen to
govern himself rather than upon a power vested in
some man or group of men placed over him. I can
merely touch here and there in this fascinating tale.
Any reader coming from a foreign country who
wishes to learn better how this great change came
about in order that he may better understand the
duties of the citizenship in America he has assumed
dr is seeking should read carefully some good his­
tory of England. Larsen’s History of England and
the British Commonwealth will be found interesting
and helpful. A careful reading of some good his­
tory of the United States such as Hart’s or Muzzey’s
will also help to give him a better understanding of
countries governed by people-made laws. In these
letters I try to do no more than give a few brief
hints about the importance to the American citizen
of knowing something of. this interesting story.
In my last letter, I wrote of the life the colonists
lived in the New World and how this life tended to
make them a self-reliant, self-governing people. I
told how the colonists had in the most part left
England because of a feeling that she was an un­
kind and arbitrary mother — hence, lacked a loyal
interest in her government, and, how the life in
America had tended to make them feel that they
were themselves a separate and distinct nation, de­
pendent on England for little. Yet we must bear
in mind that these people, whether they came from
England or from Sweden, from Ireland or from
Germany, lived in a part of the British Empire, and
felt themselves to be the subjects of that great na­
tion. Hence, the development of government in
England was a part of the development of the
American government. So we shall go back to Eng­
land again.
William of Orange was allowed to become king
of England in 1688, only upon his agreement to re­
spect the power of Parliament and the right of the
people. Consequently, soon after he came to
London, he called the Parliament together; and, by
this body, there was prepared, according to the
agreement, the third great bulwark of English lib­
erty, the Bill of Rights. This statute the king at
once signed and promised to respect. The parts of
the English Constitution which preceded this docu­
ment were the Magna Charta, wrung from King
John in 1215, and the Petition of Right, which Par­
liament forced Charles I to agree to in 1629. This
agreement became, however, a dead letter, in that
the king paid no attention to it; in fact, the resent­
ment of Parliament and the people, because of this
breach of faith, was one reason for his later exe­
cution.
The Bill of Rights restated the rights contained
in the Petition of King Charles’ time and told how
James and the other Stuart kings in their asser­
tions of divine right had abused their privileges as
rulers. Following the Bill of Rights, were the Act
of Settlement, making it law that the kings of Eng­
land should be of Protestant faith, and the Act of
Toleration, extending religious freedom to all, ex­
cept Catholics and Unitarians. Comment upon the
justice or injustice of these laws is not necessary;
the important thing is that the people of England
were coming to have greater and greater voice in
their government.
I am sure that William III had no thought of
ruling England unjustly or of failing to respect the
rights of her people. Nevertheless, he was a Dutch­
man whose chief interest was in Holland; who was
engaged in wars abroad during his entire reign;
who was in ill health; who was naturally arbitrary
and stern of rule, and who was a soldier used to the
discipline of the army. Consequently, disputes
arose between him and Parliament. The effort was
made to restore the Stuarts, and his reign was
a somewhat stormy one. Yet, his wars abroad made
it necessary for him to depend upon his ministers
and, although he was a strong, somewhat autocratic
king, the influence of Parliament became greater
during his rule.
William and Mary had no heirs, so upon William’s
sudden death by accident, Anne, Mary’s sister, be­
came queen. Anne was a weak ruler and the power
of Parliament continued to grow. Anne, too, had
no heirs, so the throne was offered by Parliament
to George, elector of the German state, Hanover,
who owed his claim to the place to the fact that
James I was his great grand-father. Moreover, as
a Protestant, he was acceptable to the powerful
leaders of the country.
George was a rude, uncouth, indolent character,
who had no knowledge of English language and cus­
toms, so had to depend a great deal upon his
ministers. These he selected from the Whig party
which, under the leadership of Sir Robert Walpole,
became the real ruling force of England. For a half
century this party continued in power, a fact of
great importance to us for this reason: the ruling
doctrine of the Whigs was that Parliament, and not
the king, should be the controlling force of the na­
tion. Neither George I nor George II made any ef­
fort to oppose Parliament in its efforts to build up
its power. Yet, it was not a rule of the people. As
many of the common people could not vote, Parlia­
ment during this long time was made up largely of
the aristocratic families and great landowners, who
as they gained power for themselves, were really
(Continued on Page Twelve)