_Question_. I see that there has lately been published a long
account of the relations between Mr. Blaine and yourself, and the
reason given for your failure to support him for the nomination in
1884 and 1888?
_Answer_. Every little while some donkey writes a long article
pretending to tell all that happened between Mr. Blaine and myself.
I have never seen any article on the subject that contained any
truth. They are always the invention of the writer or of somebody
who told him. The last account is more than usually idiotic. An
unpleasant word has never passed between Mr. Blaine and myself.
We have never had any falling out. I never asked Mr. Blaine's
influence for myself. I never asked President Hayes or Garfield
or Arthur for any position whatever, and I have never asked Mr.
Cleveland for any appointment under the civil service.
With regard to the German Mission, about which so much has been
said, all that I ever did in regard to that was to call on Secretary
Evarts and inform him that there was no place in the gift of the
administration that I would accept. I could not afford to throw
away a good many thousand dollars a year for the sake of an office.
So I say again that I never asked, or dreamed of asking, any such
favor of Mr. Blaine. The favors have been exactly the other way--
from me, and not from him. So there is not the slightest truth in
the charge that there was some difference between our families.
I have great respect for Mrs. Blaine, have always considered her
an extremely good and sensible woman; our relations have been of
the friendliest character, and such relations have always existed
between all the members of both families, so far as I know. Nothing
could be more absurd that the charge that there was some feeling
growing out of our social relations. We do not depend upon others
to help us socially; we need no help, and if we did we would not
accept it. The whole story about there having been any lack of
politeness or kindness is without the slightest foundation.
In 1884 I did not think that Mr. Blaine could be elected. I thought
the same at the Chicago convention this year. I know that he has
a great number of ardent admirers and of exceedingly self-denying
and unselfish friends. I believe that he has more friends than
any other man in the Republican party; but he also has very bitter
enemies--enemies with influence. Taking this into consideration,
and believing that the success of the party was more important than
the success of any individual, I was in favor of nominating some
man who would poll the entire Republican vote. This feeling did
not grow out of any hostility to any man, but simply out of a desire
for Republican success. In other words, I endeavored to take an
unprejudiced view of the situation. Under no circumstances would
I underrate the ability and influence of Mr. Blaine, nor would I
endeavor to deprecate the services he has rendered to the Republican
party and to the country. But by this time it ought to be understood
that I belong to no man, that I am the proprietor of myself.
There are two kinds of people that I have no use for--leaders and
followers. The leader should be principle; the leader should be
a great object to be accomplished. The follower should be the man
dedicated to the accomplishment of a noble end. He who simply
follows persons gains no honor and is incapable of giving honor
even to the one he follows. There are certain things to be
accomplished and these things are the leaders. We want in this
country an American system; we wish to carry into operation, into
practical effect, ideas, policies, theories in harmony with our
surroundings.
This is a great country filled with intelligent, industrious,
restless, ambitious people. Millions came here because they were
dissatisfied with the laws, the institutions, the tyrannies, the
absurdities, the poverty, the wretchedness and the infamous spirit
of caste found in the Old World. Millions of these people are
thinking for themselves, and only the people who can teach, who
can give new facts, who can illuminate, should be regarded as
political benefactors. This country is, in my judgment, in all
that constitutes true greatness, the nearest civilized of any
country. Only yesterday the German Empire robbed a woman of her
child; this was done as a political necessity. Nothing is taken
into consideration except some move on the political chess-board.
The feelings of a mother are utterly disregarded; they are left
out of the question; they are not even passed upon. They are
naturally ignored, because in these governments only the unnatural
is natural.
In our political life we have substantially outgrown the duel.
There are some small, insignificant people who still think it
important to defend a worthless reputation on the field of "honor,"
but for respectable members of the Senate, of the House, of the
Cabinet, to settle a political argument with pistols would render
them utterly contemptible in this country; that is to say, the
opinion that governs, that dominates in this country, holds the
duel in abhorrence and in contempt. What could be more idiotic,
absurd, childish, than the duel between Boulanger and Floquet?
What was settled? It needed no duel to convince the world that
Floquet is a man of courage. The same may be said of Boulanger.
He has faced death upon many fields. Why, then, resort to the
duel? If Boulanger's wound proves fatal, that certainly does not
tend to prove that Floquet told the truth, and if Boulanger recovers,
it does not tend to prove that he did not tell the truth.
Nothing is settled. Two men controlled by vanity, that individual
vanity born of national vanity, try to kill each other; the public
ready to reward the victor; the cause of the quarrel utterly ignored;
the hands of the public ready to applaud the successful swordsman
--and yet France is called a civilized nation. No matter how
serious the political situation may be, no matter if everything
depends upon one man, that man is at the mercy of anyone in opposition
who may see fit to challenge him. The greatest general at the head
of their armies may be forced to fight a duel with a nobody. Such
ideas, such a system, keeps a nation in peril and makes every cause,
to a greater or less extent, depend upon the sword or the bullet
of a criminal.
--_The Press_, New York, July 16, 1888.