I dig old books. ™
Est. 1998
 | ||
Home Search About Contact Terms Privacy |
America Has No Kings!
Historical Quotations
America... has no king, that is it has no officer to whom wealth and from whom corruption flow. It has no hereditary oligarchy, that is it acknowledges no order of men privileged to cheat and insult the rest of the members of the State... ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Philosophical View of Reform, c.1820, first published 1920
America has no king, whose whim could be made into a law. ~Jay William Hudson, Abbé Pierre, 1922
The extraordinary notion that the President has exclusive control over the use of the army has been in part produced by a vague impression of resemblance between his constitutional prerogative and that of sovereigns under constitutional governments. This impression is begotten partly of pride, partly of fear, and greatly of ignorance. There are some people who take such pride in everything American that they must needs consider their own chief magistrate as mightier than a king. It is not an uncommon thing to hear one of these foolish persons boast that their President has more power than the Queen of England, nay, that he is the greatest magistrate in the world. A false analogy here ministers to pride. Because the President is chief magistrate it is inferred that he is like other chief magistrates, and as these are in general kings, it does not require a great stretch of the imagination to fancy that he also is a sort of king. But an American President is not a king, nor anything like a king, any more than he is like the Emperor of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or the Mikado of Japan... The chief magistracy is not of necessity a kingly office... The Governors of our States are chief magistrates also, but they are not little kings. ~David Dudley Field, "The President's Relations to the Army," letter to the editor of the Albany Law Journal, September 1877
I have a short answer to all this. AMERICA HAS NO KING! ~"Dialogue on the Popular Objections against the Established Church," The Dublin University Magazine, February 1834
The King... who comes to his office by virtue of birth, and not of personal qualifications... reigns, but does not govern... The republican magistrate does not reign; but it is implied in his position that, within the limits of authority which the law gives him, he should govern. This is implied in the very notion of an elected magistrate. If he is not chosen on account of his capacity for government, why should he be chosen at all?... ~"The Marshalate," The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science, and Art, December 1877 [article written of France
The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent and control berserk actions by a President and by the Executive Branch of government. Presidents are not kings; they have no Divine Right; and when they commit actions that are immoral, or in violation of the Constitution, they must be stopped, or this country will cease to function as a free Constitutional democracy. ~Pete Hamill, 1972
Here is an attempt to throw something of the mystery of kingship round one who is not a King and who cannot really act as a King. A President chosen for four years... cannot really play a King's part... There is nothing sacred about him. He must submit to praise and blame. ~"The Marshalate," The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science, and Art, December 1877 [article written of France
The truth is that the American system is strictly republican. The relations between President and Congress, whatever may be their advantages and disadvantages, follow naturally from the decision of the founders of the Constitution that the executive power should be vested in a single man and not in a council, and that that single man should be, not a king, but a magistrate, elective, terminable, and responsible. ~Edward A. Freeman, "The Power of Dissolution," 1879
I repeat again and again, whenever the proposal is mentioned — America has no king. ~"Dialogue on the Popular Objections against the Established Church," The Dublin University Magazine, February 1834
Well, of course, there ain't no kings in America... ~"Hawthorne Club Stages Its Second Successful Show (If Ring W. Lardner Recognizes This as an Imitation of His Stuff We'll Apologize)," Western Electric News, March 1921
The position of the President of the United States one peculiarly well fitted for learning the truth in regard to a political question! Why, sir, king's palaces are not proverbial for the amount of truth that is uttered in the ears of the king. Indeed, it is probably one of the most repulsive features that surround a man having the kingly office, that from the day of his birth to the day of his death he never hears the honest, simple truth spoken. The President of the United States, it is true, is not a king; but some of the incidents attaching to kings attach to him, and one of those incidents is that he is less likely than almost any other man in the nation to hear the truth spoken. Who are the men that surround him, and what are their purposes and objects? To speak the truth? Does he hear the truth from them? Oh no, sir. They are men having other purposes and other objects than to tell the truth. They have an eye to fat contracts, to gifts, and emoluments. They do not go there to offend the ear of majesty by speaking the truth, unless it should be pleasant to the ear of majesty to hear it. About king's courts, and, I fear, about presidential mansions, there are many who may, without impropriety, be styled toads, who live upon the vapor of the palace. They may have the precious jewel of truth in their heads, but they are specially cautious not to have it on their tongues. ~Lafayette S. Foster, Senator from Connecticut, remarks on the bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union, 1858
It was the birthday of the Neapolitan King. According to custom, the various vessels in the harbor of Naples were decked in their gayest colors, while the men-of-war fired salutes at sunrise, noon, and sunset — with one single exception, however — and the exception was the vessel of Commodore Morgan, U.S.N., which had recently arrived to the harbor.
As the story goes, there has been, for a long time, a custom for the King to ride out on the hill, at sunset, as a token of his appreciation of this respect paid him by the foreign flags.
The hill, as everybody knows, completely overlooks the splendid bay. The king, according to custom, went there with a large attendance, and his pride was gratified as he gazed upon the various vessels now firing the sunset salute.
On looking more closely, he noticed one large vessel, which by its silence appeared to care very little whether it was the King's birthday or his funeral. He could just see over her lofty bulwarks the stacked bayonets of the marines, tinged with the last rays of the setting sun, and the forms of the two sentinels, as they slowly passed each other on the deck... The monarch's eye ran from the deck to masthead. A kiss of wind just then flung out the flag, and showed to his astounded gaze the stars and stripes...
In a much worse humor than when he started from his palace, the King returned, and sent for the Commodore... Next day, the King received him in court,
“Gathering his brows like wintry storm,
Nursing his wrath to keep it warm!”
As a matter of course the courtiers followed suit to whatever card the king led.
"Commodore Morgan, I wish to know if your nation desired that you show to me the disrespect which I observed yesterday?"
"May I ask your Majesty," said the Commodore, "how I have been wanting in respect towards your Majesty?"
"Yesterday was my birthday, and, of all the vessels in port, yours alone did not deign to fire salutes."
"Ah, sir!" replied Morgan, "pardon my republican manners. We have no kings in America, and it is not the custom to fire salutes upon our President's birthday." ~"Anecdote of Commodore Morgan," from a correspondent of the "Spirit" publication, in Arthur's Home Magazine, October 1853 [modified
The sixth Task, is to shew that no Person, in America, is of so much Influence, Power, or Credit, that his Death, or Corruption by English Money could be of any nameable Consequence.
This question is very natural, for a Stranger to ask, but it would not occur to a native American who had passed all his Life, in his own Country: and upon hearing it proposed, he could only Smile.
It Should be considered, that there are in America, no Kings, Princes, or Nobles: no Popes, Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, or other ecclesiastical Dignitaries. They are these and Such like lofty Subordinations, which place great Bodies of Men in a State of Dependance upon one, which enable one or a few Individuals in Europe to carry away after them, large Numbers, wherever they may think fit to go. There are no hereditary Offices, or Titles, in Families nor even any great Estates that descend in a right Line, to the Eldest sons. All Estates of Intestates are distributed among all the Children. So that there are no Individuals, nor Families, who have either from office, Title or Fortune any Extensive Power, or Influence. We are all equal in America, in a political View, and as much alike as Lycurgus’s Hay cocks. All publick offices and Employments are bestowed, by the free Choice of the People, and at present through the whole Continent are in the Hands of those Gentlemen who have distinguished themselves the most, by their Councils, Exertions, and sufferings, in the Contest with Great Britain. If there ever was a War, that could be called the Peoples War it is this of America, against Great Britain, it having been determined on by the People and pursued by the People in every step of its Progress. ~John Adams, letter to Hendrik Calkoen, October 1780, founders.archives.gov
We know no kings in America... ~James H. Canfield, "How Can Young Men Succeed?," 1897
But... if he don't turn out to be a king, — and he can't, fur they ain't no kings in America, — you'll stick by me anyhow — ain't you will...? ~Helen R. Martin, Maggie of Virginsburg: A Story of the Pennsylvania Dutch, 1918
It is monarchy that is to be fought down and forever demolished, at least in America... America has no king... ~Josephine Spencer, "A Heroine of the Revolution," in The Juvenile Instructor, March 1898
We firmly believe in enterprise, and legitimate speculation is the bed rock base of all business, but those who plunge into something simply because others have succeeded there, and without any personal qualifications that would command success, are neither more nor less than gamblers. They take the chances and trust to luck. It is said that fortune favors fools. Perhaps it did when kings made court officers of them, but we have no kings in America and we want no fools... ~Electrical Enterprise, editorial, May 1891
There were many gentlemen on the stage, men who posed as American citizens, but only two refused to stand and sing Britain's National Anthem, Mayor Hoan, of Milwaukee, and Rev. Charles Aubrey Eaton, being the two honorable exceptions. Dr. Eaton will be remembered as the former pastor of the Rockefeller Church in Cleveland, as well as one time editor of Leslie's. Following Sir Charles on the program, he explained why he did not stand for "God Save the King," and intimated, rather pointedly, that in his opinion, any other song would be much more appropriate in an American city. "There are no Kings in America," said Dr. Eaton. "There is no class distinction and no system of caste in this country. I speak truth and against Kings and classes." Among the delegates to the convention, but two had the moral stamina to remain seated while the others coaxed on apoplexy as they made the welkin ring to the tune of the British anthem. ~News Letter of the Friends of Irish Freedom, National Bureau of Information, Washington, D.C., July 1922
There are no Kings in America. ~Harrison L. Morris, 1910
We told him we lived in America beneath the flag for which our fathers fought; that we lived in the United States, and we had a right and had a ground to fight on; and we asked the governor to abolish the Baldwin guards. That was the chief thing I was after, and I tell you the truth, because I knew when we cleaned them out other things would come with it...
I called the committee, and I said, "Here, take this document and go into the governor's office and present it to him. Now, don't get on your knees; you don't need to get on your knees; we have no kings in America; stand on both feet, with your heads erect..." ~Mary Harris Jones ("Mother Jones"), speech, Charleston, 1912
Every great movement on behalf of humanity leads to organized action, — to the formation of parties. This cannot be helped, nor need it be. It is idle to cry out against the parties themselves. I accept facts as they are, and mean to keep myself a free man while accepting them. The modern world is learning the enormous value of intelligent and free
Should the man charged to lead our Nation with integrity and honesty be allowed to be treated any differently for charges similar or worse than those of individuals who have been convicted — solely because his position of power? The President is not a king. America was built on the ideal of equal justice under law. This concept must apply equally to everyone, including the President. ~Joseph Pitts, 1998
In America, our president will not only be without these influencing advantages [of the British king], but they will be in the possession of the people at large, to strengthen their hands in the event of a contest with him... In short, danger from ecclesiastical tyranny, that long standing and still remaining curse of the people — that sacrilegious engine of royal power in some countries — can be feared by no man in the United States.
In Britain their king is for life — in America, our President will always be one of the people at the end of four years. In that country, the king is hereditary, and may be an idiot, a knave, or a tyrant by nature, or ignorant from neglect of his education, yet cannot be removed, for "he can do no wrong." This is a favorite maxim of their constitution. In America, as the President is to be one of the people at the end of his short term, so will he and his fellow citizens remember, that he was originally one of the people; and he is created by their breath. Further, he cannot be an idiot, probably not a knave or tyrant, for those whom nature makes so discover it before the age of thirty-five, until which period he cannot be elected. It appears, we have not admitted that he can do no wrong, but have rather pre-supposed he may, and sometimes will do wrong, by providing for his impeachment, his trial, and his peaceable and complete removal.
In England the king has a power to create members of the upper house, who are judges in the highest court, as well as legislators. Our President not only cannot make members of the Senate, but their creation, like his own, is by the people, through their representatives: and a member of Assembly may and will be as certainly dismissed at the end of his year, for electing a weak or wicked Senator, as for any other blunder or misconduct...
In all royal governments, an helpless infant or an inexperienced youth may wear the crown. Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people...
From such a servant, with powers so limited and transitory, there can be no danger, especially when we consider the solid foundations on which our national liberties are immoveably fixed, by the other provisions of this excellent constitution...
We have seen that the late honorable convention, in designating the nature of the chief executive office of the United States, having deprived it of all the dangerous appendages of royalty, and provided for the frequent expiration of its limited powers — As our president bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the senate have no similitude to nobles. ~An American Citizen (Tench Coxe), "An examination of the Constitution for the United States of America, submitted to the People by the General Convention, at Philadelphia, the 17th day of September, 1787, and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject," 1788
I shall begin with observations on the executive branch of this new system...
It is remarked by Montesquieu, in treating of republics, that in all magistracies, the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration, and that a longer time than a year would be dangerous. It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic, the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate, enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents; this tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious, and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, gives him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs, he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow-citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country. And here it may be necessary to compare the vast and important powers of the president, together with his continuance in office, with the foregoing doctrine — his eminent magisterial situation will attach many adherents to him, and he will be surrounded by expectants and courtiers, his power of nomination and influence on all appointments, the strong posts in each state comprised within his superintendence, and garrisoned by troops under his direction, his control over the army, militia, and navy, the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt, his duration in office for four years: these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position, that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin the country.
Though the president, during the sitting of the legislature, is assisted by the senate, yet he is without a constitutional council in their recess; he will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites, or a council of state will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments, the most dangerous council in a free country.
The ten miles square, which is to become the seat of government, will of course be the place of residence for the president and the great officers of state; the same observations of a great man will apply to the court of a president possessing the powers of a monarch, that is observed of that of a monarch — ambition with idleness — baseness with pride — the thirst of riches without labor — aversion to truth — flattery — treason — perfidy — violation of engagements — contempt of civil duties — hope from the magistrate's weakness; but above all, the perpetual ridicule of virtue — these, he remarks, are the characteristics by which the courts in all ages have been distinguished...
It is a maxim in republics that the representative of the people should be of their immediate choice; but by the manner in which the president is chosen, he arrives to this office at the fourth or fifth hand, nor does the highest vote, in the way he is elected, determine the choice...
Compare your past opinions and sentiments with the present proposed establishment, and you will find, that if you adopt it, that it will lead you into a system which you heretofore reprobated as odious. Every American Whig, not long since, bore his emphatic testimony against a monarchical government, though limited, because of the dangerous inequality that it created among citizens as relative to their rights and property; and wherein does this president, invested with his powers and prerogatives, essentially differ from the king of Great Britain (save to name, the creation of nobility, and some immaterial incidents, the offspring of absurdity and locality)... for though it may be asserted that the king of Great Britain has the express power of making peace or war, yet he never thinks it prudent to do so without the advice of his Parliament, from whom he is to derive his support, and therefore these powers, in both president and king, are substantially the same: he is the generalissimo of the nation, and of course has the command and control of the army, navy and militia; he is the general conservator of the peace of the union — he may pardon all offences, except in cases of impeachment, and the principal fountain of all offices and employments. Will not the exercise of these powers therefore tend either to the establishment of a vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy? The safety of the people in a republic depends on the share or proportion they have in the government; but experience ought to teach you, that when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers, and interested in his
In a recent conversation with an eminent American banker, I was fortunate enough to secure a rapid sketch of the money kings of the United States. What he said was somewhat on this wise:
"We have no kings in the United States, but only a plutocratic aristocracy. It is a modern feudal system. The Republic is portioned out between great interests, which have superseded the district as the unit of sovereignty.
In England in the Middle Ages you had your duke, who, from his feudal castle, exercised all but regal authority over the whole countryside. He levied tax and toll upon his vassals, he administered justice, raised armies, and ruled and reigned as the earthly Providence — or the diabolical scourge — of the countryside.
We have the same kind of thing in America, only the basis of the power of plutocratic feudalism is not territorial, but financial. There are, for instance, the railway kings. They require nearly 200,000 miles of metalled way. Each of their vast satrapies represents the conglomeration of innumerable smaller lines. Each of these lords of the metalled way makes alliances, levies war, invades territories, and reigns with despotic sway over a standing army of hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men... Pierpont Morgan, J. J. Hill, Colossi, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt... Harriman and Cassatt and Gould and Moore, each with a distinct realm within which his will is law.
What is the authority of a Senator or even of a President compared with the sovereignty of these men within their own peculiar domain? Then there are the great banking kings, the iron kings, oil, shipping, sugar. Of minor monarchs there is no end.
These men are the rulers of the Republic
I will briefly refer to the amusing claim that the Materialist is a "King," the "King of nature"! We have no "kings" in America, and want none; and man, Materialist or non-Materialist, is a part of nature and no more its "king" than is any other part of it. ~Singleton W. Davis, editor, The Humanitarian Review, July 1909
America has no king... ~Gilbert Abbott à Beckett, The Comic Blackstone, 1844
NOTE: If you are looking for the mobile-friendly, condensed version of this page you can find it here on my personal site.
Home Search About Contact Terms Privacy | ||
|
published 2025 Jun 13
www.quotegarden.com/no-kings.html