¶ Lincoln is absolutely in error, and his much-quoted words are folly. It is not a question of goodness, or badness, or fitness, on part of the man who has the ambition to rule, but it is very much a question of his courage, his craft or his cunning in compelling others to do his bidding. Julius Cæsar was not selected to rule, but he selected himself; and so did Charlemagne, and Bismarck--and so Lincoln, himself. ¶ If some concession to the democratic system is sought on the ground that the voice of the people loudly "called" Lincoln, then it is to be set up that Lincoln on his part was one of the shrewdest political log-rollers this nation has ever seen; and if he did not originate the canvass that busies itself kissing the babies, congratulating the wives and shaking hands with the farmers, then at least Lincoln was an apt pupil. It is inconceivable that, without his own high ambition, his long and painstaking endeavors to trim sail to every favoring gale (for example his shifting positions on the slavery question), he would have been nominated for President of these United States. * * * * * ¶ It is an amiable conceit of human nature, looking backward, to profess to see what it blindly ignored, looking forward; and go to any penitentiary in America, ask the convicts, and you will find that, according to the stories, there are no guilty men behind the bars; invariably a peculiar complication of circumstances enabled the guilty man to escape, and justice was thereupon avenged by a human sacrifice; likewise in the United States Senate or in the House of Representatives, ask whom you please, "How came you to hold your seat?" and you will find no ambitious man. Some were forced to stand against their protests; others were away traveling when word was received, by telegraph, "You have been elected!" Still others appealed to the nominating committee, "For the love of God desist!"--but in vain. Thus, without raising a finger to direct the movement of events, our leaders were selected by an omnipotent democracy to occupy the seats of the mighty. ¶ Truly, no man is good enough to rule another without that other man's consent! Recast in terms of human experience, it would mean that we would go unruled; for no man yet has willingly selected his ruler, but has had dominion over him thrust upon him--even as Bismarck expressed his right to rule, backed by blood and iron. Such is human nature since the world began; otherwise why was Christ, the gentlest ruler of all time, brought to the tree; Socrates forced to drink the hemlock by the very wise justice of his day; and Columbus called a madman because he wished to rule men's minds with a new truth, showing clearly that the world is not square or flat, but round like a ball? ¶ Bismarck had the real clue--and forced his purpose through the power of his commanding personality. 29