Letters

Still Bets on Webster

To THE EDITOR: The three letters in your April issue commenting on my "Of the People, By the People, For the People" article which appeared in February were both gratifying and surprising to me. It was gratifying to find that the article had elicited some interest among the alumni but surprising to have the three gentlemen call attention to other possible sources of this famous phrase. I had not thought that I had denied the presence of other possibilities in presenting my case for a probable Webster origin.

At the time of my writing the story, I realized the existence of other similar phrases but felt that none of them could be traced along so plausible a route as the one I charted from Webster to Parker to Lincoln. In order to keep the article as little involved as possible, I chose not to treat other possible sources, but to concern myself only with the details of what I believe to be the most probable one. I am, however, sorry if I failed to make clear my awareness of others.

Although I did not wish to give any negative argument in the article, I should be happy to tell here why I consider as doubtful the sources which Messrs. North, Musgrove, and Chandler suggest.

Mr. Chandler mentions John Adams and Chief Justice Marshall. I believe that the probability of either having passed the phrase along is less credible than with Webster. As I show in the article, there is a definite connection between Webster and Parker, and a near certainty that Parker was Lincoln's source. It is difficult to recognize any such convincing association with Adams, Marshall, or others.

Concerning the suggestion of both Mr. North and Mr. Musgrove that the phrase as spoken by Lincoln is taken from the General Prologue of the Later Version of Wycliffe's Bible, I find considerable reason to doubt that this is true.

The General Prologue was first printed in 1536, previous to which time it had, of course, existed in manuscript. The next printing was four years later, and was followed by a third appearance in 1550. It was not published again until printed by Oxford in 1850. This edition comes at a date which would have made it possible for either Parker or Lincoln to use it as their source for the phrase. It would have been difficult for them to do so, however, since the phrase does not appear therein.

I have thoroughly examined the work myself, and the efficient and scrupulous members of the library's reference staff have carefully gone over the General Prologue and other prefatory material. We have greatly benefited by an increase of Biblical knowledge and proficiency in Middle English, but have found nothing that remotely resembles the Gettysburg phrase.

Our findings are confirmed by Stevenson's Home Book of Quotations and Hoyt's NewCyclopedia of Practical Quotations. Stevenson writes:

"There has been a tradition that 'of the people, by the people, for the people' occurred in the introduction to the translation of the Bible made by John Wycliffe about 1384, but a careful examination has failed to disclose it The examination of the difficult text was made by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress "

This would seem to leave Daniel Webster still the likeliest person to have started the development of the phrase which was made famous by Lincoln at Gettysburg.

Hanover, N. H.

Temporary, Yes;Slums, No

To THE EDITOR: In the April ALUMNI MAGAZINE William H. Ham said in his 1897 class news, "What is needed in Hanover is a slum clearance program. We have our 'tobacco road' back of Thayer School to get rid of."

My wife and I, as well as probably almost all former and present Wigwam residents, took exception to this statement. A copy of the letter she wrote to Mr. Ham is enclosed.

Dear Mr. Ham As a Dartmouth wife and resident of Wigwam Circle, I read your article on future town development in the April ALUMNI MAGAZINE with great interest. I was pleased that you are giving much of your thought and time to Hanover's future appearance.

However, I was distressed because you mentioned "slums" in Hanover quite often in your article. I do not feel that any of these areas are true slums. Hoping that the residents of the other locations will speak for themselves, I write to you only about Wigwam Circle. I cannot let your attack on Wigwam, which you characterized as "tobacco road," go. unchallenged.

First, I would like to say, and I think that I speak for an overwhelming majority of Wigwam Circle's inhabitants, that we are very pleased with what the College has done with the problem of veterans' housing in Hanover. A glance at our own housing facilities is but one indication of this. We have three rooms, a large well-ventilated livingroom and bedroom, a good-sized kitchen, and bathroom. Surely this is a great deal more than most couples have in this day of housing shortages. The college equips each apartment with an ample and modern icebox, the best electric hot plate on the market, oven, and double sink. Also included, naturally, are the space heater, wash basin, toilet and shower. Incidentally, the college provides 24- hour maintenance of these facilities. Walls and floors of apartments are almost always given a fresh coat of paint before occupants move into them. The buildings, situated as they are in two circles, provide streets and yards. Our own apartment overlooks a green lawn in summer, a number of very lovely pine trees, a view of the Connecticut and the Vermont hills. What could be nicer? The college also maintains four Bendix machines for our use in the basement of Thayer School.

In saying that Dartmouth has no tobacco road here, I feel I can speak with some authority. We and our friends have seen G.I. housing developments in many colleges across the country. The quonset huts and trailers crowded together with community toilet facilities made us realize Dartmouth's foresight in planning comfortable Wigwam Circle ...

I realize that Wigwam Circle is a temporary measure, but as such, it is no slum. In conclusion, you as a Dartmouth man can be proud of what your college has done.

(Mrs. Thomas H.)

The Last Word?

To THE EDITOR: At the risk of carrying the discussion of Professor Knight's article to greater lengths than you wish to go in the pages of the MAGAZINE, I am sending a few comments on Mr. Wolfe's letter on "liberalism." It is always difficult to sign off a debate like this, and to decide who shall have the last word in print. I will leave that nice decision to you, with the suggestion that you might end matters by publishing two divergent views simultaneously, and then let the fur fly exclusively through the U." S. mails, or on street corners.

In any case, I feel that the alumni owe a deep measure of gratitude to the Editors of the MAGAZINE for their fairness in handling the various articles and letters on the subject in question, and for the large amount of space they have devoted to it. I, for one, am much heartened by this trend, and trust that it may be continued in other fields.

As far as Mr. Wolfe is concerned, he seems bound and determined (shades of Senator McCarthy) to cast some ugly shadows on my personal concept of government. However, I fail to find any mention or intimation in my own letter of any traffic with Communism, Fascism, Socialism, or even the Townsend Old Age Pension Plan. I fail to see that the quotations from my letter, as triumphantly offered by Mr. Wolfe, indicate any moral bankruptcy or ethical perversion. They are merely part of an effort to set classic liberalism (dare I use the phrase!) in a proper historical perspective, so that we can eliminate some of the hysteria about its present condition. I am "for" freedom, individual integrity, Etc., just as much as Mr. Wolfe, perhaps more so. My disappointment with Professor Knight's position was not that it showed him to be a classic liberal. It was rather that I felt he did a poor job in the advocacy of his position, and that he had succumbed to the urge to rant and rave instead of indicating the way out of the woods. In its present form, the Knight article is powerful evidence that classic liberalism is a "dead duck." I still hold to this criticism, except that I ask Professor Knight to move over and let Mr. Wolfe sit beside him. I have neither presented nor expected any panaceas. Just scrounging around for some sound proposals.

In addition to being off base on my politics, Mr. Wolfe has also fallen heir to some common errors of logic. In fact he seems to be an accomplished master of the "non sequitur." For example, he says that because I pointed out that classic liberalism (as Professor Knight and I both thought of the word) was in opposition to the prevailing philosophy of government in England in the eighteenth century, that I am therefore defining liberalism as nothing more than "opposition." The fallacy of this kind of deduction is obvious. It leads to the kind of nonsense that says, "Hitler wore a mustache. Therefore, all men who wear mustaches must be pretty much like Hitler." I don't believe that Mr. Wolfe can honestly quarrel with the fact that liberalism experienced some pretty rough going during its practical and ideological ascent in society. If he says that I am in error for sketchily trying to present some facts about the growth of liberalism, then I may well plead guilty. However, Mr. Wolfe has not seen fit to challenge my history, inadequate as it could be.

Another major inconsistency—and a glaring one it is—involves Mr. Wolfe's assertion that we still need to work out a definition of liberalism which will instantly apply to everybody who steps on Dartmouth property, including Mt. Moosilauke and the Wentworth Location, and which will invariably mean the same thing. To me, this implies that he is not yet sure what liberalism means, or ought to mean. Also, that there may yet be some data on the meaning of liberalism which he has not yet discovered. On its face, this is an admirable approach. But alas, the whole tenor of his letter shouts that he is pretty sure what it means. He is also quite sure that I am a pseudo-liberal, presumably choking on my hors d'oeuvre. This points to the conclusion that Mr. Wolfe already has strong beliefs and definitions about liberalism—at least strong enough to judge other people by them. He infers that he wants to be open-minded. Yet, actually, he can't quite bring himself to do it. Whatever else it may be, his approach is certainly not scientific or geometric. Perhaps we should call it "pseudo-scientific."

I do, surprisingly enough, agree with him on the need for defining terms. Our methods are different. In the realm of ideas and emotions this is not as easy as it is in geometry. Most people don't get excited about right angles, but they get very excited about big government and big business. Geometry is impersonal. Politics and economics are much less so. Therefore, I believe that Mr. Wolfe is unfair and unrealistic when he demands that concepts of social science be made mathematically and universally precise. Our need is less for dictionary definitions of words, and more for a constructive channeling of human drives and aspirations. On the individual level, I would say that instead of asking a lecturer to conform to the College definition of liberalism (if one could ever be established), we might ask him to be specific about" his own definition. Then each person in the audience could determine whether he liked it or wished to reject it. Despite Mr. Wolfe's denials, I think there is considerable danger in trying to lay down conditions for the expression of opinion. Once a precedent is set, it is hard to draw the line.

Finally, Mr. Wolfe's plea for a lecture on the "Anatomy of Liberalism" shows that he has plopped into the familiar rut of blanket emotional partisanship, which he pretends to disdain. He closes up shop by saying that "liberals" (I guess he means pseudo-liberals) do nothing but loaf and criticize, whereas conservatives (real liberals?) are right guys. Seems to me, this is where we came in.

West N. H.

Prof. Knight's Reply

To THE EDITOR: Many of the alumni who wrote to me about the December article on state paternalism probably expect some response to the scoldings which the ALUMNI MAGAZINE printed. I pass over the muscular assertions of Mr. Ferry to the more dulcet confusions of Mr. Preiss. Apparently Mr. Preiss imparts to the American Dream the special aroma of the flowers that bloom in the spring. Since he does not accept the proposition that the principal ingredient of liberalism is liberty, in the sense of personal freedom to make choices and personal responsibility for the choices made, he manages to miss the main point. His curious melange of "philosophy and "history" seems to twist this view of liberalism into class conflict, bourgeois apologetics, and the misdeeds of the Republican Party. It is notable also for its omission of both philosophy and history. Thus, it overlooks the fact that the American Colonists rebelled against England chiefly because they were sick of state paternalism and that they undertook to establish a government in which the diffusion of power would prevent a recurrence of the disease. Again, it ignores numerous historical demonstrations of the fact that persons, and families, and voluntary associations cannot shift responsibilities to the state without a corresponding surrender of their liberties.

The state, in the nature of the political law on which it is based, is designed to make everybody act alike in certain respects. But it cannot, consistently with liberalism, enforce uniform behavior in fields of activity, such as morals, religion, education, research, and enterprise, the very life of which depends on personal conscience, interest, and initiative.

The state may properly prescribe and enforce the general rules of competition but not the detailed plays of the game. It may properly redistribute the results of good and bad luck but not the fruits of personal effort and initiative. This sets a limit to the security which the state may legitimately dispense, and such question-begging terms as "welfare state" and "fair deal" do not alter the fact. Otherwise the penitentiary would be the "welfare state" at its best.

The article was written in the hope that a diagnosis of state paternalism would encourage Dartmouth alumni to resist the malady. I believe most of them will recognize for pernicious twaddle Mr. Preiss's notions that state dumping is no worse than private dumping where international amity is concerned and that stickiness in the prices of products and labor can be laughed off as something "Freudian." Anybody who is looking for the Freudianesque might be reminded that long ago the "welfare state" was known in Austria as the "Wohlfahrt Staat." And I trust that they will remember the opinion of paternalism which Daniel Webster expressed in the Dartmouth College Case.

Hanover, N. H.