Manchester High School - Somanhis Yearbook (Manchester, CT)

Page 33 text:

SOMANHIS EVENTS 33 originating any idea. It can only approve or disapprove of the ideas sug- gested to it by individuals. If Pres. Coolidge says, “Let us lower the Tariff,” the people may, by electing him to office, express their approval of this policy. They could not, however, have originated it apart from the sugges- tion of some individual. If a democracy is to function at all, then there must be some mechanism by which it may express its approbation of men or measures. This might be done in case of questions of policy, by submitting them directly to popular vote; but this method cannot be easily applied in all matters. It does not at all solve the problem of the election of officers agreeable to the people, for the purpose of carrying on the government. In order to do this, political parties are a necessity. Elihu Root, in his book called “The Citizen’s Part in Government,” sug- gests a fine illustration of the truth of the last statement. Let us suppose that in your state there were no political parties and that each voter went to the polls and voted simply for the man of all men in the state whom he considered best fitted to be governor. It is clear that the number of persons voted for would be very large. Even if one candidate received a plurality, his votes would still be small in proportion to the total number of votes cast. Probably, the great majority would have preferred some one else to the man elected under this system. It would be impossible for him to claim that he represented the people and would be no assurance that his policies would meet with their approval. In other words, the very purpose of democ- racy would have been defeated. A way in which this can be avoided is by having those persons who holds views in common to club together to support a particular candidate pledged to their views. The result is a political party. To proceed with the illustration, before the next election, men interested in certain lines of business or holding certain opinions on procedure, would convene and deter- mine to whom their votes for governor would go. Naturally a candidate of some one of these groups would be elected. The third election would see group merging with group, men giving up some part of their opinions for the sake of the whole. This process would continue until there are two major parties. When this stage has been reached, a candidate of one of the parties may express the general ideas of a majority of the people. There- fore it can be said that not only are political parties necessary to the opera- tion of a democratic government, but that there are normally two great major parties. This does not necessarily mean that there must be only two parties; for there are at all times small groups of men who, holding a particular view which they consider of immense importance, will not unite with either great political party. If, therefore, parties are inevitable and indispensable, no matter what defects may appear in their operation, they cannot be regarded as either good or evil. They are to be looked upon as is any other necessary mechan- ism of government. If they seem to be turning out bad results, the only and proper course is to endeavor to discover and remove the cause of the evil. Parties are the means and not the end of political activity. The history of the political parties in the United States begins in those differences with regard to economics and taxation which, soon after the middle of the eighteenth century, began to muddle relations between England and her colonies. The foundation of party spirit was the question as to whether loyalty to king or loyalty to country should come first. Those who adhered to the former were the prosperous and aristocratic people of the colonies ; those who held the latter view were of smaller wealth and of lower station. The distinction was like that which existed in England at the same time between the Tories, who were partisans of the crown, and the Whigs, who were decidedly against the Tory policies. These names were imported

Page 32 text:

32 SOMANHIS. EVENTS ed a most scathing criticism which would have made a less conceited person abandon the field of writing. Mark Twain's first appearance as a speaker, the beginning of a life-long series of triumphs on the platform, was at a printer’s dinner in Keokuk. He was elected “governor” of a mock legislature. In his speech none of the politicians escaped ridicule. On another occasion when asked to make a conundrum, he said, “Well, why am I like the Pacific Ocean?” Several guesses were made but he shook his head. Someone said, “We give up; tell us, Mark, why are you like the Pacific Ocean.” “I don’t know,” he drawled, “T was—just—searching for—information.” His autobiography is a very interesting collection of incidents which he chose to tell at random. ‘They are told in his own whimsical informal fash- ion which none can imitate. The more recent humorists term themselves “Columnists”, as their writings appear first in newspaper columns and magazines. Not always do they produce literature of high merit, but they do recognize and represent present day humor. Montague Glass portrays the Hebrew as an American business man. His success in discovering and developing this field of humor may be accounted for by the fact that he is descended from an old well- known Jewish family. His “Abe Potash” and “Morris Perlmutter”, types among which he grew up, are classics. George Ade must be mentioned among the original American geniuses for his development of slang into a highly cherished medium of expression. From his contact with modern civ- ilization he has made an interesting contribution to literary history with his “Fables in Slang.” Ring W. Lardner has a dialect of his own. He seems to combine a mixture of all the arts which the earlier humorists used. Like many American humorists he served his apprenticeship in newspaper work. His reputation for “You Know Me, Al” stories is growing. Almost every possible phase of humor has been developed by some author or other. George Fitch contributed the best book of college humor thus far produced. Irvin S. Cobb’s “Speaking of Operations” has stamped him as a natural-born humorist. John Kendrick Bangs was one of the few literary artists of his time who expressed humor oratorically. He became the most notable humorous lecturer and after-dinner speaker this country has ever known. In speaking of humorists, women are almost invariably left out. It is true that there are few American women who have entered the field; but Ruth McEnery Stuart, in her quaint writings of the negro South, has shown her gift of humor. Anne Warner appeared at just the right time to heighten and continue the tradition of American women as humorists. Her work, mostly character sketches, is an incomparable part of our general tradition. Humor offers a varied and extensive field of endeavor. This literature has been so rapturously received by an over-strung people during the past decade or two that it shows signs of over-development. But, with the serener general outlook, this phase will disappear, and the literary value of humor of a higher quality is bound to increase. Stella Adele Lincoln POLITICAL PARTIES AND THEIR PLACE IN AMERICAN HISTORY One of the greatest critics of democracy, Sir Hon. Sumner Maine, once asked this pertinent question: “How can a democracy make up its mind?” Obviously, it cannot determine, as an individual can. It is incapable of

Page 34 text:

34 SOMANHIS EVE NLS into American to fit the corresponding factions here. The Revolutionary War exterminated the Tories. Not long after, two parties showed themselves at the Constitutional Convention. On one side was the commercial class of New England which wanted above all a strong central government. On the other hand there were the small farmers and the frontiersmen, a group numerically greater, who favored a popular government. A compromise was formed at the Con- gress, with the result that both factions gained several of their points, It was not long, however, before other friction arose. This disagree- ment was fostered by two of the most brilliant men of the time: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The former believed that the states states should retain their sovereignty; while Hamilton favored a strong cen- tral government. ‘They differed on the question of the National Bank. The breach between them grew wider. Inevitably Washington was drawn into controversy and sided with Hamilton. ‘The followers of Hamilton were called “Federalists”, while the Jeffersonians were known as the ‘Republi- cans”. After a reign of twelve years the Federalists passed out of existence. From 1801 to 1824 the Republicans were the one dominating party in the United States. But the one party was doomed, for there arose a new movement which introduced universal white male suffrage into every state constitution. Naturally it originated in the West where conditions made for equality between man and man. These Democrats were more radical than Jefferson. This party had as its leader the colorful, but bigoted and prejudiced man, Andrew Jackson. In 1828 this party won a smashing victory, which placed it in full control of the government. The principles of this party were: narrow interpretation of the Constitution, which was the leading Jetferson- ian principle; and the abolition of the National Bank. Their adversaries were the more conservative element of the old Republican party. They crystallizel into the National Republican party, which adopted the old Fed- eralist principle of wide interpretation of the Constitution and high tariff. In 1834 the Whig party was formed out of the National Republican and a portion of the Southern Democrats who were not pleased with Jackson's anti-states’ rights view. This party, however, was always divided between a Northern and a Southern Whig and so never possessed and genuine solidar- ity. Its members were divided on slavery, tariff, and practically every other issue of the day. From 1836-1852 the Whigs and Democrats fought for the control of offices throughout the country. In the meantime a hitherto unknown issue appeared. ‘This issue, slavery, was of such immense potentiality that neither side dared to take a definite stand. Finally in 1854 the North Whigs, being opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, definitely separated from the South Whigs and took the name of “Anti-Nebraska Men,” which was soon changed to that of Republicans. This new party’s platform was broad interpretation of Constitution, and protective tariff, and opposition to the extension of slave territory. The triumph of the Republicans in 1860 resulted in the division of Demo- crats and the secession of the southern states. After the war, the attitude of the Democrats on the money question closed the entrance to power for an- other decade. The Republican party reigned from 1861-1913, being in constant control of the government; except for the eight years of Cleveland, a Demo- crat. A real test of Republican power can be seen in that for only two years at one time did a Democrat control both the presidency and Congress. It is quite natural that the Republican party should have been slow to gain a foothold in the South. It was not until 1820 that a Republican can- didate carried a Southern state. The party remained true to its National Republican and Federalist predecessors in believing in the broad exercise