But this misconception is so deep rooted that more extended discussion is needed.  I pass on to other matters.

The essential point is that public opinion have free scope of development.  Every American will admit that.  Now, public opinion finds its expression in the principles that govern the use of the suffrage.  The German voting system is the freest in the world, much freer than the French, English, or American system, because not only does it operate in accordance with the principle that every one shall have a direct and secret vote, but the powers of the State are exercised faithfully and conscientiously to carry out that principle in practice.  The constitutional life of the German Nation is of a thoroughly democratic character.

Those who know that were not surprised that our Social Democrats marched to war with such enthusiasm.  Already among their ranks many have fallen as heroes, never to be forgotten by any German when his thoughts turn to the noble blood which has saturated foreign soil—­thank God, foreign soil!  Many of the Socialist leaders and adherents are wearing the Iron Cross, that simple token that seems to tell you when you speak of its bearer, “Now, this is a fearless and faithful soul.”

Let it be said once and for all:  He who wants to understand us must accept our conception that constitutionally we enjoy so great a political freedom that we would not change with any country in the world.  Everybody in America knows that our manners and customs have been democratic for centuries, while in France and England they have been ever aristocratic.  Americans, we know, always feel at home on German soil.

But the Kaiser, you will say, speaks of “his monarchy,” therefore must the Germans be Fuerstenknechte, (servants of Princes.)

First of all, as to the phrase “Fuerstenknechte.”  Does not the King of England speak of his “subjects”?  That word irritates a German, because he is conscious that he is not a subject, but a citizen of the empire.  Yet he will not infer from the English King’s use of the term in formal utterances that an Englishman is a churl, a “servant of his King.”  That would be a superficial political conception.

As to our Princes, most of us, including the Social Democrats, are glad in our heart of hearts that we have them.  As far back as our history runs, and that is more than 2,000 years, we have had Princes.  They have never been more than their name, “Fuerst,” implies, the first and foremost of German freemen, “primi inter pares.”  Therefore they have never acted independently, never without taking the people into counsel.  That would have been contrary to the most important fundamental principles of German law; hence our people have never been “de jure” without their representatives.  Even in the times of absolute monarchy the old “estates of the realm” had their being as a representative body, and wherever and whenever these privileges were suppressed it was regarded as a violation of our fundamental rights and is so still regarded.