xt70rx937t9n_537 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4.dao.xml unknown 13.63 Cubic Feet 34 boxes, 2 folders, 3 items In safe - drawer 3 archival material 46m4 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Laura Clay papers Temperance. Women -- Political activity -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- United States -- History. Women -- Suffrage -- Kentucky. Women -- Suffrage -- United States. Speeches text Speeches 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_20/Folder_6/Multipage26859.pdf 1920-1927 1927 1920-1927 section false xt70rx937t9n_537 xt70rx937t9n " ’ " fiancg [19cm
' }" ( #4 M 1 , 10‘

flu» / [Cr/(M

,7» w “421%.. «vi-“hypuaiw ~
41' . . 2 ‘3; V ,
V j ) {fi‘nre’ A ~. /! / l , j

,LLVVA, ff


M 7’ 14:3/f (if/114, V

//:/ [1/12 f/L/«t VI... I1/ 2% (g. 1
1 in”

,, , 2.741% _ J
b FWWA a it 6f


{7 , 4g!

Tflrvvt 7;}‘“*4-mf (3%

g "jay r434

/ {F L x

‘ ”i. “Ann-“‘7 4.91/31,

a: Law ”"7
117?.“ nu #2,”,1," ‘__,.;,~g.,!]»,1 .. 1’





4 [,

PM‘J ”" ff""“" ""1'*~f;/- ~73," '2
i'« ’L/f I r:
"’ /T"r :L f]! step-.1 ‘ 6: J 11% .
‘ 4/ (“’W? ’2‘ '\
~1£L/( .

Ll ¥

6‘, ’L‘ :fl“



K , 7/
/ \
are . fl

L ’1111'

4} ,1 1“ ,
1 ,


 W /£”/L.4
flwgwé mwaé Lfl

1/7/61th M/L M7 WW mfl/Z

A/LW/fi/(IW mg/Zfieééo

(2,42va //ZA CfW thfl'W W’Q/d (AA/Q

(1/:VV/LJ/l/ ’/ W l/f //

27711, ,‘7


' I. Wit/m

ZLW’OLLpL/I V/I/ “a“

2,23,” W”% ”, ,
MM CCWfi, W"“I/
/ W?

11/ fifj’f

{I /¢’LL{ Mtg/4.44m MyLbZWA7Z 141' 1-
i/d/Lrt; Vinfi’fi/ Wfi L Wfl/f' fl WT


 , r,» ' gr
///7}"(" fill/y ”VI/(x
"' - .‘- -‘2,l L ( 3 (


H" , x z
QM )1 1C (“€lfim “1714/ 7r r/ilcvc:
1“’ / 7/1 (-
,‘lvtvlv' LEW?“ ‘ [2 41/41 1 4/:\-
V ’1 \fZLJ
” [Mafia [m
rr " A3dT/frl


, / /

k1 /
( L/L/f Z( 41/ ’ [/2 (3/ 1 ( f 71 1 1 1/ l 1 / AL I ’é.

up 7f’—{’( ./ / ‘ ,fe A {”1 (1’7; ’ 4.,

U l’II‘L pm A: 1/1

I ‘


I I l I t (.376,
/ v , « f C l t


(I F 2. I (3 a
Yul—243. { kp /, z 3

1l( lL/4W/N 1’; [/LL/Z Z 3'; L/M

777:6 {Lift/f [3:33

’ ML
/4/1/\/LZ1/L~’ / ‘L WL. /

/?(1zc/{’M fflfié
”fig/Zr \‘1/4474/1'

2 WM 1«1,;


 The Education Of Women






Entered as second class matter 14 October, 1926, at the Post
Oflice at Claremont, California, under Act of 24 August, 1912





 The Education of Women










Lady Ogilvie’s sojourn with us last autumn was a
memorable event for students, faculty, and friends of
Scripps College.

Although Scripps is privileged from time to time to
entertain educational leaders from near and far, it is indeed
a rare occasion when we can welcome the head of a younger
college than ours (which has yet to celebrate its thirtieth
birthday). Lady Ogilvie’s reference to her own St. Anne’s
College, Oxford University, as the “younger sister” of
Scripps is therefore as gracious as it is almost unique.

We are grateful to this distinguished and charming
administrator for her spirited apologia in behalf of liberal
education for women. We shall remember with warm
appreciation the things that she told us.

The address here presented was given on the lecture
foundation established by the late Mr. and Mrs. Oliver
Perry Clark. We are pleased to share it with our circle of
friends, including those who were unable to be present
during Lady Ogilvie’s visit to our campus.








I am greatly honored by being invited to come to this lovely
college to deliver the Clark Lecture. I am only too well aware
of the fine tradition of Clark lecturers, and I know, too, of
the great reputation which Scripps College holds in the world
of education as a vanguard of liberal learning. In the words
of the President of this college: “Scripps believes that sound
education is the supreme means of ennobling and enriching
the resources and capacities of the human mind and heart.”
These are noble words, indeed, and words which reach out
far beyond the bounds of this campus.

I come from an older foundation, but a younger college than
Scripps. I bear with me messages of greeting and good wishes
from a younger sister college seven thousand miles away —
St. Anne’s College, Oxford, England. When I landed ofir my
plane in Boston, in the middle of a hurricane, I lined up with
the other passengers —- one of a somewhat battered and storm-
tossed party —- in order to satisfy the immigration authorities
as to the reason for my journey. An official scanned my papers,
rather dubiously, I thought. Then light dawned. “Ah,” he said,
“you’re an educator.” And all was well. Today, all of us in
this hall are educators, either of ourselves or other people, or
even of both. Because of this, I make no excuse for the title
of my lecture — ”The Education of Women.”

I believe the time is ripe for much thought on this whole
matter. I am strengthened in my conviction that you are
thinking of this problem in America as we are in Great
Britain, for I have been fortunate to have been able to study
the findings of the Commission on the Education of Women
of the American Council of Education. Their report — written
by the Director, Althea Hottel -— is packed with wise and good
things. I recommend it to all of you who have not already
seen it. Its title is “How Fare American Women?”

Mary Donlon, in her stirring conference statement, is quot-
ed as saying: “This we know, the free way of life draws on





woman power for survival almost as heavily as it draws on
man power. What we seem not yet fully to have learned is
that woman’s work and woman’s special talents, if used in
attacking community problems during less critical times,
might obviate the recurring crises that threaten to destroy the
already weakened fabric of our society. Women ask full part-
nership both in opportunity and responsibility because it is also
their homes and their children whose well-being ensures the
survival of civilization. . . . The home, citizenship, health and
welfare, the armed forces, production, education, the best use
of our leisure, and the control of everyday economics that un-
derpin the national economy, all these are facets of women’s
responsibilities and opportunities in the defence decade.” Sure-
ly this is a challenge to us all. Are we preparing ourselves, as
women, for such a task? Is the education we are giving to
women in high school and college of the kind to meet their ex-
pressed needs?

I realize a great deal has been said and written on the edu—
cation of young women, more perhaps in the past than at pres—
ent, and throughout history various experiments have been
tried. Some of these experiments are worth remembering to-
day. There was — perhaps the most continuous and successful
of all — the domestic education oflyoung women at home, or
in the great household. Plato wanted them to learn “to make
men’s and women’s garments, also pastry and bread, living in-
doors and supervising the wool and the loom.” This was the
pattern for centuries. Alongside of it, in Christian times, went
their monastic education, the curriculum advocated by St. Ie—
rome, consisting of religious instruction, reading, writing,
grammar, and spinning. For the daughters of the poor there
was education with an industrial emphasis carried on, often in
dreadful conditions, in charity schools. For the daughters of
the rich and noble the Renaissance gave a real meaning to the
advanced literary education of young women which had its
origins in the ancient world —- the education of aristocratic
ladies, of the Lady Margaret Tudor, Princess Elizabeth, and
Margaret Roper. This was followed by the advanced social
education into which the literary experiment dwindled and
degenerated — the education of accomplishments and virtuous






maxims. And finally, in our own day, the parallel education
of girls and boys for equal opportunities in professional, cul-
tural, and social life.

The end of an old story: “They learned happily together
ever after.” But will they? I wonder. There is nothing more
potentially dangerous, it may be argued, than to suggest a dif—
ferentiation of the education of girls from that of boys, particu-
larly in an age when public and domestic responsibilities are
very much more evenly shared between men and women than
ever before. Why dig up long-dead issues? Why make old scars
bleed anew?

My answer is: That is not what I am trying to do. I am not
looking backwards, but forwards. I want to pause for a mo—
ment and say: “Where do we go from here?” There are sev-
eral reasons why I think we ought to pause. One is the speed at
which women’s education has travelled in the last hundred
years. Looking down from my plane yesterday on the vast
Arizona desert, I realized that a hundred years is a long time
and that much can happen in it. It is a far cry from the days
of the covered wagons to those of the crowded roads between
here and Los Angeles. But the point I want to make is that one
hundred years ago the pattern of men’s education was already
set, and had been so for generations, and yet there were no
women’s colleges and only a handful of girls’ schools.

In the women’s movement of the second half of the nine—
teenth century America led the way which Britain was slowly
to follow. In 1846 an anti-slavery convention met in London.
The assembly was shocked to find the American delegation
contained four women, and decided they could only be suf-
fered to attend the conference shut away in a little gallery be—
hind curtains. When the four American women returned
home they were instrumental in summoning the Women’s
Rights Convention at Seneca Falls. The women’s movement
had begun — and in America. England followed, but the op—
position was great. The spearhead of the feminist movement
was higher education of women. These early pioneers in Brit-
ain had to face not only suspicion and stonewall opposition,
but what women find even harder to bear — ridicule. In the
sixties Godey was writing in his Lady’s Book: “The great mis-





fortune which lies in the path of highly cultivated women is
the absence of active occupation for their mental energy.
Stimulate the sensibilities of your boys and blunt those of your
girls.” And thirty years later Oscar Browning could say, and
get away with it: "The best woman is intellectually the in-
ferior of the worst man.” Such examples could be multiplied
indefinitely; they are period pieces and must be treated as such.
But they make sense of the seemingly blind spot in the women
who planned girls’ education even fifty years ago.

The Buss-Beale generation in England and the early protag—
onists in America had to be fighters; they had to prove that
women had the intellectual equipment to justify a higher edu-
cation ——- and they did so abundantly. But they could not stop,
as we can, to examine how far the curriculum they had taken
over — a man’s education for a man’s world —— was relevant
to their particular problems as women. Later generations of
women have come to realize this.

Miss Buss and Miss Beale
Cupid’s darts do not feel.

How different from us
Miss Beale and Miss Buss!

But we should not have been here today if these early women
“educators” had not had the courage to be “different.” They
won their battle and we have entered into our heritage.

Today, in the 1950’s, there are new factors which affect the
whole situation of women’s education, and of which we, Who
care about it, should be fully aware.

The most important of these is the direct result of popula-
tion trends. For the first time in our history in England we
are faced with the prospect of an equal number of men and
women in the age group 25-35. This, taken in conjunction with
the high marriage rate and low average age of marriage, will
result in an almost complete lack of employable spinsters.
Whether we like it or not, the essential services, such as teach-
ing and nursing, will have to be carried on, part—time, by mar-
ried women. In America, the Commission’s report tells us, al-






though women still outnumber men, the pattern is similar.
Women are marrying younger and having their children ear—
lier than in the 1920’s. Today 50.7% of the women working
are married, as compared with 30.3% in 1940. 33.4% — over
19 million women — are employed outside their homes. The
Commission considers that in more than four million families,
or one out of every ten, in the United States, a woman carries
the main responsibility for financial support of the family.
In both countries the dual role women will have to play has
been intensified by the spread of education. During the first
decades of this century college education was still only for the
few scholarly—minded girls from well—to—do homes, and it led,
in most cases, to a “career.” Many women graduates did not
marry, and others married late, after some years of profes—
sional life. Few, if any, foresaw a life whose most active years
would involve a concentration of thought and energy on the
day—to—day business of child—minding, cooking, washing, and
cleaning. It is not surprising that there was no question of pre-
paring them for such a fate by teaching them the domestic
arts. In 1880, it is true, Miss Buss required all entrants to the
North London Collegiate School to show proficiency in mak-
ing a buttonhole — just one. But thereafter no serious attention
was given to needlework. When I was at school forty years ago,
cookery classes were limited to the stupid girls in the class; the
clever ones learned Latin and algebra instead. Now thousands
of girls, many helped by scholarships, make their way each
year to college, on both sides of the Atlantic. After they gradu—
ate, a few will carry on with their careers, nearly all will marry
within a few years of leaving school. With the disappearance
of paid domestic help both in America and England all will
have to combine competence in the traditional domestic skills
along with the hard-won intellectual freedom which they have
inherited from their grandmothers and great—grandmothers.
With the general spread of education, too, the role of the
older woman in the community assumes a new importance,
“the dowager’s dilemma,” as it has been aptly called. There are
many reasons for this dilemma. These include the younger
age of marriage, the pattern of the smaller family, the narrow-
ing of the wife-mother role owing to families sharing so many




of their functions with other social institutions, the greater ex—
pectation of life, and the prolongation of youthful energy
through recent advances in medicine. The failure of society to
employ the older woman when the period of her child-rearing
is over has been called “one of the most senseless wastes of
American life, that of the energy and intelligence of the mil-
lions of women whose sons and daughters have left home.”
In England, too, the community is slow to use them, yet we
need them for volunteer services outside the family and, if
they wish to work, in the labor forces of the nation. As for
themselves, many of them are restless. What are we going to
do about it?

Here then is the crux of the whole problem for us in Eng—
land, and for you in America. Women in the foreseeable fu—
ture will lead increasingly complex lives, encompassing home-
making, gainful employment, and community service. Will
the society of the next twenty—five years look upon women
chiefly as homemakers and secondarily as economic and politi-
cal contributors? Or will society expect women to manage
their many responsibilities in some sort of balance, retaining
the awareness, reflection, and thought necessary for wholeness
at each stage of their lives? How can the school and other social
institutions aid women to achieve wholeness in their various
patterns of life? How can they, I quote the words of the Com—
mission, achieve “tranquillity”?

As a result of all this, there has arisen an entirely new school
of thought on women’s education. For many in England it is
associated with Newsom’s book The Education of Girls, but
similar ideas are to be found everywhere — in the press, on the
radio, and among people interested in women’s education in
general. In America, Lynn White states the same problem and
approaches the same solution. The pendulum has begun, slow-
ly, to move backwards. Newsom states the problem in this
way: “We have to discover how far the present education, and
particularly the education of girls, is related to the function of
women in modern society.” It is not concerned with what the
function may ultimately become but what it is now, in the fifth
decade of the twentieth century. Mr. Newsom then describes
the function of women in modern society as he sees it. The





great majority of young women leaving school will, in due
course, marry and have to face the day—to—day tasks and re—
sponsibilities connected with child—bearing and homemaking.
It is indeed a worthy and dignified function which may be
deeply satisfactory to the emotions, and one which makes in—
sistent calls on a high degree of common sense, adaptability,
and altruism. But Mr. Newsom is insistent on its intellectual
demands. He says to produce Homczml a Z’Amerimine to per-
fection requires as much wit as to construe one of the more
obscure passages of Bcrcnicc. I don’t know if he is right, be—
cause I can’t do either. He would like high school education,
examination requirements, and college faculties to be directed
more specifically to the performance of that function. Mr.
White wants his young women to study the theory and prac—
tice of “Basque paella, lamb kidneys sauteed in sherry, and au-
thoritative curry.” He also quotes Tisserant approvingly that
“women should be educated so that they can argue with their
husbands.” He believes that “the neglect of the family by our
world of scholars damages the unconscious attitudes and value
judgments not only of women but of educated men as well.”
Why won’t college graduates have more babies, love their hus-
bands more, and run better homes? Something is wrong with
their education, obviously. Well, perhaps he is right. The chap-
ter of “New Approaches to the Education of Women” in the
Commission’s report is full of stimulating suggestions which
should be taken to heart by us all.

And yet I think there is an element of danger in both Mr.
Newsom and Mr. White. Their doctrine sometimes gets om—
inously near that of a certain Mr. Greg in the Saturday Post in
the ’70’s — “The essentials of a woman’s being are that they
are supported by, and minister to men.” Let us consider for a
moment Newsom’s phrase “the function of women in modern
society.” Man’s function is more varied perhaps, more connected
with things than people. We remember the words of Simone
de Beauvoir: uMan masters by act and by conceptual thinking.
Woman prefers to shape an environment for living.” But the
function of a great number of boys in the modern world is to
become scientists, engineers, technicians. Yet who amongst us
would dare to say that a purely scientific education was




enough to train them for their function in the modern world?
We would all agree that science, for all its power and benef-
icent activity, has its limits. "Science is dumb,” writes Sir Rich-
ard Livingstone, “when we ask it to explain the greatest hu—
man works or experience or emotions, exaltations, agonies and
love, and man’s unconquerable mind.” In their absorption in
education for their function in a modern world we would
want neither our boys nor our girls to risk losing, in the phrase
of Socrates, “the sight of the eye of the soul.”

What sort of education, then, do we want for young women?
In general, I think who teaches her and how she studies mat—
ter more for a girl than the subjects studied. I do not mean by
this that the necessary disciplines in the curriculum should be
neglected, but the freest possible scope, in spite of the bondage
of examinations, should be given to people to follow their own
choice. It is sometimes said that girls and boys cannot possibly
know what they want to learn. This has never been my experi—
ence, although sometimes the choices are rather startling. But
here wise advice, rather than direction, from deans and coun—
sellors, can do much. What is so important is that the spark of
real enthusiasm, without which no subject can come alive,
should not be quenched. You remember the words with which
Celia, in T. S. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party, is sped on her jour—

She will pass between the scolding hills and through
the valley of derision

Like a child, sent on an errand, in eagerness and

Patience is something all women have to learn, and learn early.
We wait for so many things to happen — for the menfolk to
come in from the garden for their meal, for the cake to bake
in the oven, for the clothes to dry on the line. Later on, we
wait for our children to be born. But eagerness is more illusive.
It can so easily flicker and die, damped down by the pressure
of everyday cares. Yet without it the life of the spirit dies, or
is never born. To foster eagerness, even in a strange place, is
the greatest task of any teacher. And this enthusiasm should,




._ 4...“; WM_ -



 in college, be primarily found in work, not in extra—curricular
activities however inviting. I always remember the story of
the little girl in tears over her paint—box. When asked what
was wrong, she answered: “I do so hate my hobbies.” But it is a
far greater tragedy not to find genuine satisfaction in work
which must always be the core and focus of college life.

Secondly, I think that girls should learn at school and in col-
lege the things they will not learn on the job ,as, in the course
of time, they develop the technique of homemaking and child—
bearing. They must learn the habit of systematic thought and
mental concentration. Iust because “their function in the mod—
ern world” is to be what it has to be, their education must give
them scope for “thoughts which wander into eternity.” “The
ability to think straight, some knowledge of the past, some
vision of the future, some skill to do useful service, some urge
to fit that service into the well—being of the community —
these are the most vital things education must try to produce.”
So Virginia Gildersleeve in Many a Good Crusade sums up the
aims of women’s education. For some this will be difficult, but
all, I believe, should be given an opportunity to get to grips
with the best, even if they have to “tag along” —— even if they
do not do as well as the people at the top of the class. A little
Scots boy once uttered a profound truth on this subject. He was
reproved by his mother because every week found him at the
bottom of his class. At last he grew tired of her remonstrances.
“Dinna fash yersel’, Ma — the eddication is the same at the
bottom as at the top.” And for some at least will come the op—
portunity to experience that spiritual illumination which

Magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.

They will experience Housman’s “shiver down the spine” —
the supreme climax of intellectual excitement. Girls must
learn, through the discipline of reading books, and not only
through the too easy medium of television and radio, of peo-
ple, of places and ideas far outside the range of their own func—
tion in modern society. Vast stretches of a woman’s life




consist of absorption in practical detail, preoccupation with per-
sonal relationships; there will be much boredom and monot-
ony. Only by what we learn when we are young are we given
the strength and resources

To safier woes which Hope thin/(5 infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates
From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;

This like thy glory, Titan, is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.

In fact, what Mr. White calls “Education for Catastrophe.”
This chapter of his book I would recommend to you all. It is
full of nobility and vision. "Clearly,” he says, "education for
‘success’ in the usual sense —— whether as a man or a woman —
is inadequate. We must educate not only to achieve success in
building careers and families but likewise for success in meet-
ing, handling, and transcending tragedy. In part, at least, we
must educate for catastrophe.” In other words, we must make
it possible for girls to live, as mature people, in their modern

And, in addition, they must learn a skill which will be their
very own, and which they can share, if need be and when the
time comes, with the community at large, as well as with their
own family. The dowager can then return to her skill in mid-
dle life. When they learn this, is a matter for experts, of whom
I am not one. This skill need not be an intellectual one, and in
the vast majority of girls it will certainly not be so. But there
must be mastery in it, no matter how narrow the field, wheth—
er as scholar or research worker, in industry or in nursing, as
a teacher, a secretary, or a cook, each girl should be trained to
the limits of her ability and become a real mistress in her own
particular field. The ablest must serve most and take most of





 life’s burden. The other skills will come, I believe, as they are
needed. Only in this way, at this juncture of history, can we
help women to perform their dual role of homemakers and
citizens; only in this way can we satisfy the chief need of girls,
and of women generally, which is to be themselves.

All of what I have been trying to say — of education in the
“humanities” in the broadest sense of the word — is what you
are doing here so magnificently. To you, students of Scripps
College, I would say: “You are indeed fortunate: the lines are
fallen unto you in pleasant places. You have a goodly herit—
age.” But just because you are here, the world will expect
much of you when you leave the campus. You will be expected
to be wise, capable of forming balanced judgments on people
and affairs. You will be expected to be able to weigh evidence,
keeping what is good and discarding what is false. You will
have to be ready to refuse second—hand opinions and cheap,
lazy values. You will have to have the courage of your convic-
tions always. Because you have lived in a community like this,
your sense of obligation to others must spill over to them from
your private life, and you must be willing to share your gifts
and your skills with people outside your own homes. Above
all you must show the tolerance and compassion which spring
from true understanding. Of course all this will not happen at
once. Nothing worth while ever does. Quiller-Couch once said
that passing judgment on children in their school years ~——— and,
I would add, girls at college —— is like judging an apple’s flavor
in June. Given the right conditions in youth, we shall have a
rich maturity. The right conditions must take into account the
development of the spiritual life and the emotions as well as
the intellect, and only thus can we have a rich maturity.

It is the third part of us, the life of the spirit, which makes
for the real “function of women in the modern world,” with-
out which schools and colleges and curricula and teaching,
however good, can mean nothing. Let us not forget that “we
are such stuff as dreams are made on.” “We are born not of
blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God. . . .” Thank God we are. . . .





 Iaoth Annivesary of Renry Clay; “April I2. 1927,

I am geld it has fallen to me, in paying tribute to the Great com-
moner, to dwell upon those qualities of his mind and heart which 35*:
inspire even the humblest citizwns to learn from him the principles
which make their country safe from insidious foes to liberty working
within as well asfigzacksofnnm foreigh enemies.

His love of country was of the truest type of patriotism. He loved
her institutions and he was faithful in his obedience to them. He
wanted his country to be great and he was wilang to do all thingd
which would ennoble her. Ris eminence as a citizen consisted in
his oil’s vision of what would advance and alse:£hat would threaten ‘
her glory. He had a marvelously clear understanding that #finfigznafimaibh
depended upon fabradherenoe to law as laid down in 13$;COnstitution;
ef;unfaltering courage in the defence of tiisrightn ; and in seru-
pulous integrity, magnanimity and self-control in dealing with \’
ether nations, whether they be strong or weak. ‘I

The episodes of the war of 1812 with England and then the little
war with the Seminole Indians illustrated his lofty views . Early in
perceiving the dangesr to our nation in submission to the encroachments
of England upon our naval rights he had led in bringing about the
war of I812. Ours had seemed a feeble nation in eomparison with the
power of the mistress of the seas; but his courage was not dismayed,
for he ,.§1.vea our cause was Just. He had helped to bring that war
to an honorable conclusion. Singularly enough, the greatest triumph
of our,arms was the battle of New Orleans which owing to'the slew-
nese of communication, was fought after the treaty of peace had been
signed in Ghent. that battle had no effect upon the war, but it had
filled our people with military pride and no doubt added to the wholesome

respect for our nilitaty efficiency in foreign countries. It made



General Jackson the hero of his countrymen.

Then cane the pitiful little war with the Seniaale Indians, also
conducted by Gen.Jaokson, with some lapses from recognized law which
caused Henry Clay to make his noble defence before Congress of the
right of the Indians to receive from our government and our army tin:

scrupulous regard for established law. He showed that the very weak-

ness of our foe should be A‘s protection, because it should warn our

people to watch over themselves lest nilitaty prestige or arrogance
of power should eat into our respect tlrlaw and the Constitution
which are the safeguards of our own libertiea'towards high ideals
When we see the unfalteringattitude of Henry Clay%\during these
fr n exan 1e

contrasting events weilug‘catch a glimpse of the uplift w ich

Providence would give to the people when He bestows upon then the gift

of a-emfi “them with a great vision, like that of Henry Clay.




N 4,. 1“,” [Printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD July 6, 1922.]

“in: the mental and physical vigor of her children, in industrial

enterprise, in financial strength, in martial achievement, this

Nation, unconquered and invincible, commands upon the one

_ hundred and forty-sixth anniversary of her birth the envy and

- fli'e‘admttation of the world, the acknowledged premier of the

' planet, holding in her youthful and puissant hands the destinies
61:3 distracted globe.

ff Intreviewing the proud annals of the past, rich in historic
incident, one supernal fact stands, a thing apart, rising tower-
Iike above the material mastery of a continent, above the dis-

' 'is coveries of inventive genius, the immortal labors ot' philosophers
and sages, above valor‘s inspiring victories on land and sea—
' for that one and mighty thing is at once the inspiration and the
idiyard of all that we have ever hoped or thought or done—the
declaration of our independence of the domination or Control
of’any power on earth; it is more than a national liberation,
itpis the eternal guaranty of personal freedom, it is the in-
estimable heritage of every citizen, rich or poor, high or low,
under the protecting aegis of the Stars and Stripes.

“After 4,000 years of vain endeavor and blighted hopes, weary
‘wanderers in the wilderness of oppression found in the New
'World freedoms promised land, where all men may stand erect
and unawed by human power, free to live their own lives, speak
their own thoughts, shape their own destinies. bending the knee
only to God, to whom alo