|
H. O. Foss, April 4, 1873. [Folketidende (Mandal), July 2, 1873.] New Hope, Portage Co. Wisconsin den 4de April 1873. |
Translated by Thomas O. Foss 4/12/2014 |
| I 30 Aar har jeg nu opholdt mig her i Amerika, og jeg har saavel taget Deel i de politiske Anliggender her i Landet, som jeg med Interesse har fulgt Begivenhederne i fædrelandet. Da jeg længe forgjæves har ventet at en eller anden norskfødt Amerikaner, der havde bedre Evner og Kundskaber end jeg, vilde tage Pennen for at fortælle vore Brødre i det gamle Land, hvorledes vi herover i den nye Verden har indrettet os i mange Henseender, der ere forskjellige fra dem i det kjære Fædreland, og hvilke Tanker vi nære om Embedsforholdene og den undertrykkelse som der finder Sted af Bonden og Arbejderen, saa vil jeg nu tage Pennen med Bøn om at disse Linnier maate blive optagne i Deres Blad “Folketidende”, da jeg tror at der kunde gives enkelte Vink, som burde tænkes nøie over af det norske Folk, og det maa ikke betragtes blot som mine, men næsten alle herboende Nordmænds Tanker hvad jeg fremfører. | For 30 years now I have lived here in America, and I have taken part in the political affairs here in this country, as I have followed with interest events in the fatherland. Since I have long waited in vain that one or another Norwegian born American, who has better ability and knowledge than me, would take the pen to tell our brothers in the old country, how we over here in the new world have adapted ourselves in many respects, the differences from you in the dear fatherland, and what thoughts we hold about the conduct in office and the suppression of the farmer and the laborer which finds a place over there, so I will now take up the pen with the request that these lines should be printed in your paper “Folketidene”, and I think that it could give a simple sign, that ought to be thought about carefully by the Norwegian people, and it must not be considered as only mine, but thoughts of nearly all the Norwegians living here that I am expressing. |
| Frihed har vi her saavel i borgerlig som kirkelig Henseende. Vi vælge selv vore Embedmænd og Præster, og med Hensyn til de sidste har vi at indrette os aldeles som vi selv vil; thi Staten befatter sig ikke med Religionen; men lader det blive enhver Borgers private Sag. At en Menighed ikke selv skal faa bestemme hvilken Præst den vil have, anser vi for den største Uretfærdighed fra Statens Side, og Følgen bliver da ogsaa at Præsterne handler aldeles som de selv vil, anser sig som Herrer og ikke som Tjenere, foragter sine Undergivne og arbeider af alle Kræfter mod enhver Frihedsbevægelse. Dette kan ogsaa siges om Embedsmændene i det heletage, hvor de udnævnes af Regjeringen. Det ser for mine Øine ud som at Embedsmændene alene skulde være til for Regjeringens Skyld, til at holde Folket under Aaget, og ikke for Folkets Skyld. Anderledes forholder det sig, hvor Embedsmændene vælges af Folket selv og ud af dets egen Midte, og efter at have staaet i nogle Aar som Embedsmand atter vænder tilbage til sine forrige Sysler. Her har Folk og Embedsmænd de samme Interesser, og stiller sig ikke lige over for hinanden som to fiendtlige Partier; men virker i Forening til det fælles Bedste. Embedsmændene udgjør paa denne Maade ikke nogen egen Stand, men tilhører selve Folket, og Folket har ikke nogen Udgifter til lærde Skoler og Universitetet for at uddanne Embedsmænd der siden vil blive til Plage. Der findes her kun en eneste Skole i hele de Forenede Stater, som underholdes af Regjeringen, og det er en skole for høirere militære Embedsmænd; forresten maa enhver selv sørge for at forskaffe sig selv Kundskaber og det forsømmes derfor ikke. | We here have freedom in civic as well as religious concerns. We choose our own representatives and pastors, and with regard to the latter we make arrangements entirely as we ourselves want; because the state does not meddle with religion; but lets it be each citizen’s private matter. That a congregation could not on its own choose which pastor it wanted, we deem as the greatest injustice of the state, and it follows also that the pastors handle things entirely as they want, conduct themselves as masters and not as servants, with contempt for their inferiors and work with all their strength against every free movement. This can also be said of office holders on the whole, where they are appointed by the government. To my eyes it looks like the officeholders only are obliged to be for the government’s sake, to hold people under the yoke, and not for the people’s sake. Here it is conducted differently, our officeholders are chosen by the people and out of their own midst, and after having stood a few years in office return again to their former occupation. Here people and officeholders have the same interests, and don’t set themselves straight over each other like two hostile parties; but work together to the common good. Officeholders form in this manner no stand of their own, but belong to the people, and the people don’t have any expenses for schools and universities to train officeholders that afterwards become a torment. There is found only one single school in the whole United States which is supported by the government, and that is a school for higher military officers; otherwise each must see to themselves to procure their own knowledge and therefore that is not neglected. |
| Nogen store Udgifter til krigsgrejer i Freden har vi ikke, da vi kun holder nogle Garisoner paa enkelte Punkter, hvor vi anseer det for nødvendigt; men naar Fare truer Landet, da er hver Mand villig til at forsvare Landet. At Norge skal anvende saa uhyre Midler til Militærvæsenet i fredens Dage, naar ikke den fjerneste Fare sees, forekommer mig at være Galmandsværk. Den store Sum Penger, der anvendes dertil, forekommer mig at være liden mod den Ødelæggelse for Staten, som bevirkes ved, at en saa uhyre stor Arbeidskraft drages bort fra sine Sysler den beste Tid af Aaret, og alle de unge Mænd, som af den Grund rømmer Landet. En stor Mængde unge Mænd ankommer hertil hvert Aar, og naar man spørger disse om hvordan det staar til i Norge og om Aarsagen hvorfor de har forladt Landet, saa faar man gjerne til svar: “Dæ ær saa reint forgæli mæ dæn Søllater Tenesta.” Det maa dog virkelig være en forfærdelig Indretning, naar Landets kraftigste og bedste mænd skal rømme Landet af den Grund, og jeg maa af Hjertet beklage, at det norske Folk endnu ikke har faaet Øjnene op for dette Forhold. Efter den Beskrivelse, som jeg har faaet paa Militærvæsenet i Norge, tror jeg at Soldaten der slet ikke er mere fri end Negerslaven var her, naar jeg undtager Kjøb og salg. Jeg tror slet ikke at Negerslaven var saa indsnøret som Soldaten i Norge. Han blev vist ikke nægtet hverken Mad eller Drikke blot for sin Eiers Fornøielses Skyld, og ei overanstrængt naar der ingen Nødvendighed var derfor; thi Slaveeieren havde Fordel af at behandle sine Slaver godt, men en samvittighedsløs Officier føler Fornøielse af, og tror at indlægge sig Ære ved at overanstrænge Soldaten. Soldaten har næsten ligesom Slaven ene og alene Pligter, men faa eller ingen Rettigheder. At en Soldat skal undvære Stemmeret, forekommer mig at være en stor Uretferdighed. Han skal offre Liv og Blod for Landet, men ikke have rettigheder til Gjengjæld. Ja, jeg hører at det endog er forbudt ham at forlade Landet. Hvad kan de høie Herre vente af saadanne Soldater, naar Fare skulde true Landet og Krig udbryde? Soldater, som ved Magt og Trudsler ere holdte til Fanerne, hvoraf den største Del ikke eier mere end sit eget liv, og som, hvis han seirer ikke kan se den mindste Fordel for seg selv, men fremdeles vil blive holdt som Slave til de store Herrers Lyst og Glæde. Mon ikke saadanne Soldater vil være opfyldt af saadanne Tanker; “Seirer vi, er vi ligefuldt Slaver, taber vi kan vi ikke mere undertrykkes end vi allerede er.” I vil vel sige saadanne Tanker findes ikke hos den norske Soldat, han vil vove sit liv til det Yderste for Fædrelandet. Ja det findes, derom vidner alle de til Amerika Ankomne. Naar man taler med dem kan man faa et Begreb om den Aand der har Vaagnet blandt de lavere Klasser i Norge. |
We don’t have any large expenses for war gear in times of peace, when we only hold a few garrisons in a few places, where we consider it necessary; but when danger threatens the country, then everyman is willing to defend the country. That Norway should employ such huge military mediation in days of peace, when not the slightest danger is seen, to me seems as the act of a madman. The large sums of money, used for that, seems to me to be small compared to the destruction for the state, which brings about, that so large a work force is pulled away from their occupation the best time of the year, and all the young men, which for that reason flee from the country. A large number of young men arrive here every year, and when one asks them how things are in Norway and of the reason why they have left the country, one mostly gets this answer: “It is so completely insane with the soldier service.” It must well be a real frightful arrangement, when the countries strongest and best men are leaving the country for this reason, and I must from the heart lament, that the Norwegian people still have not had their eyes opened to this affair. After this description, which I have gotten on the military system in Norway, I believe the soldier there isn’t much freer than the black slave was here, with the exception of being bought and sold. I don’t believe at all that the black slave was so laced in as the soldier in Norway. He was surely not denied either food or drink just for his owners pleasure sake, and not overworked when there was no emergency; because the slave-owners profited by treating their slaves well, but an officer with no conscience feels pleasure from, and believes he gains honor by overworking the soldier. The soldier has almost like the slave solely duty, but few or no privileges. That a soldier shall do without voting rights, seems to me to be a great injustice. He is obliged to offer life and blood for the country, but not have rights in return. Yes, I hear that he is even forbidden to leave the country. What can the high master expect of such soldiers, when danger should threaten the country or war break out? Soldiers, who with might and threats are held to the banner, of whom the most part don’t own more than their own life, and who, if he wins doesn’t see the least part for himself, but still will be held as a slave to the big master’s delight and joy. I wonder if such soldiers aren’t filled with these thoughts; “We win, we are nevertheless slaves, we lose we can’t be more repressed than we already are.” You will well say such thoughts do not exist in the Norwegian soldier, he will put his life in peril to the utmost for the fatherland. Yes, they exist; it is witnessed by all the arrivals in America. When one speaks with them one gets an idea of the spirit that has awakened among the lower classes in Norway. _ |
|
Jeg tror at de Dage er forbi, da den norske Soldat med Ordet “Fædrelandskjærlighed” kan ophidses til at trodse Døden for sine Undertrykkere; thi Oplysningen har steget formeget iblandt dem. Saalænge Uvidenheden har Overhaand blandt et Folk kan det holdes nedtrykt, men naar Oplysningen stiger, da er det saare vanskeligt, det begynder at fordre sine Rettigheder. Giv den norske Soldat menneskelige Rettigheder og Stemmeret i Lighed med hvad Soldaten har her i Amerika, og I skal se, at I kan stole paa ham. Ved at give Soldaten Stemmeret vilde den omtrent komme til hver myndig Mand, og førend dette sker tror jeg ingen rigtig Forbedring er at vente. Maaske I vil sige: “det kan være brav nok i Republik, men det gaar ikke an at indrette sig saaledes i et Kongerige.” Jeg kan ikke indse hvorfor man ei kan indrette sig ligesaa frit i et Konstitutionelt Kongerige, som i en Republik, da Magten egentlig paa begge Steder ligger hos Folket og Forskjellen kun skulde være den, at i et konstitutionelt Kongerige er den øverste Myndighed som ligger hos Kongen arvelig, medens den i Republiken ved Valg bliver overdraget til en Person for en vis Tid. En god Konge agter og Respekterer ligesaavel de Beslutninger som fattes i Nationalforsamlingen, som Præsidenten i en Republik. Dersom en eller anden, der kunde komme til at læse disse Linier vilde tage dem alvorlig til Eftertanke, var Hensigten dermed opnaaet.
- H.O. Foss. |
I believe the day is passed, that the Norwegian soldier with the word “Love of Fatherland” can excite defiance of death for his oppressor; because enlightenment has risen too much among them. As long as ignorance has the upper hand among the people they can be held down, but when education rises, then it is very difficult, they begin to demand their rights. Give the Norwegian soldier human rights and voting rights equal with what the soldier has here in America, and you shall see, that you can rely on him. By giving the soldier voting rights that will nearly come to every powerful man, and before that happens I believe no real improvement can be expected. Perhaps you will say: “it can be worthy enough in a republic, but it can’t work to arrange that in a monarchy.” I cannot see why one cannot arrange it this way in a constitutional monarchy, like in a republic, when the power really in both places lies with the people and the difference should only be this, that in a constitutional monarchy the highest authority which is with the king is hereditary, while in a republic an election transfers it to a person for a certain time. A good king regards and respects equally the decisions which are conceived in the national convention, as the president in a republic. If one or another, patron there comes to read these lines and would take them seriously to reflection, the intent has been attained. - - - |
| ________________ | ________________ |