{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16542/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16542","id":"gutenberg_16542","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16542","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Imperialism","United States -- Colonial question"],"text":"Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Sigal Alon and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net.\nProduced from page images provided by the Digital and\nMultimedia Center, Michigan State University Libraries\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"Imperialism\"\n\nAND\n\n\"The Tracks of Our Forefathers\"\n\n\n\nA PAPER READ BY\n\nCHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS\n\n_Before the Lexington, Massachusetts, Historical Society_\n\nTUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1898\n\n\n\n\"In a word, many wise men thought it a time wherein those two miserable\nadjuncts, which Nerva was deified for uniting, _imperium et libertas_, were\nas well reconciled as is possible.\"--_Clarendon's History of the Rebellion,\nB. 1. Sec. 163._\n\n\"I put my foot in the tracks of our forefathers, where I can neither wander\nnor stumble.\"--_Burke's Speech on Conciliation with America._\n\n\n\nBOSTON\nDANA ESTES & COMPANY\n210 SUMMER STREET\n1899\n\n\n\n\n\"IMPERIALISM\"\n\nAND\n\n\"THE TRACKS OF OUR FOREFATHERS.\"\n\n\nWhat the feast of the Passover was to the children of Israel, that the\ndays between the nineteenth of December and the fourth of January--the\nYuletide--are and will remain to the people of New England. The Passover\nbegan \"in the first month on the fourteenth day of the month at even,\"\nand it lasted one week, \"until the one and twentieth day of the month at\neven.\" It was the period of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, and the\nfeast of unleavened bread; and of it as a commemoration it is written,\n\"When your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?\nthat ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who\npassed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote\nthe Egyptians. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt\nin Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.\" And thus, by their yearly\nPassover, were the Jewish congregations of old put in mind what farewell\nthey took of the land of Egypt.\n\nSo our own earliest records tell us that it was on the morning of\nSaturday, of what is now the nineteenth of December, that the little\nexploring party from the _Mayflower_, then lying at her anchor in\nProvincetown Harbor, after a day and night of much trouble and danger,\nsorely buffeted by wind and wave in rough New England's December seas,\nfound themselves on an island in Plymouth Bay. It was a mild, \"faire\nsunshining day. And this being the last day of the weeke, they prepared\nther to keepe the Sabath. On Munday they sounded the harbor, and marched\ninto the land, and found a place fitt for situation. So they returned to\ntheir shipp againe [at Provincetown] with this news. On the twenty-fifth\nof December they weyed anchor to goe to the place they had discovered,\nand came within two leagues of it, but were faine to bear up againe; but\nthe twenty-sixth day, the winde came faire, and they arrived safe in\nthis harbor. And after wards tooke better view of the place, and\nresolved wher to pitch their dwelling; and the fourth day [of January]\nbegane to erecte the first house for commone use to receive them and\ntheir goods.\" Such, in the quaint language of Bradford, is the calendar\nof New England's Passover; and, beginning on the nineteenth of December,\nit ends on the fourth of January, covering as nearly as may be the\nChristmas holyday period.\n\nIs there any better use to which the Passover anniversary can be put\nthan to retrospection? \"And when your children shall say unto you, What\nmean you by this service? ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the\nLord's passover, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.\"\nSo the old story is told again, being thus kept ever green in memory;\nand, in telling it, the experiences of the past are brought insensibly\nto bear on the conditions of the present. Thus, once a year, like the\nIsraelites of old, we, as a people, may take our bearings and verify our\ncourse, as we plunge on out of the infinite past into the unknowable\nfuture. It is a useful practice; and we are here this first evening of\nour Passover period to observe it.\n\nThis, too, is an Historical Society,--that of Lexington, \"a name,\" as,\nwhen arraigned before the tribunal of the French Terror, Danton said of\nhis own, \"tolerably known in the Revolution;\" and I am invited to\naddress you because I am President of the Massachusetts Historical\nSociety, the most venerable organization of the sort in America, perhaps\nin the world. Thus, to-night, though we shall necessarily have to touch\non topics of the day, and topics exciting the liveliest interest and\nmost active discussion, we will in so doing look at them,--not as\npoliticians or as partisans, nor from the commercial or religious side,\nbut solely from the historical point of view. We shall judge of the\npresent in its relations to the past. And, unquestionably, there is\ngreat satisfaction to be derived from so doing; the mere effort seems at\nonce to take us into another atmosphere,--an atmosphere as foreign to\nunctuous cant as it is to what is vulgarly known as \"electioneering\ntaffy.\" This evening we pass away from the noisy and heated turmoil of\npartisan politics, with its appeals to prejudice, passion, and material\ninterest, into the cool of a quiet academic discussion. It is like going\nout of some turbulent caucus, or exciting ward-room debate, and finding\noneself suddenly confronted by the cold, clear light of the December\nmoon, shining amid the silence of innumerable stars.\n\nAddressing ourselves, therefore, to the subject in hand, the question at\nonce suggests itself,--What year in recent times has been in a large way\nmore noteworthy and impressive, when looked at from the purely\nhistorical point of view, than this year of which we are now observing\nthe close? The first Passover of the Israelites ended a drama of more\nthan four centuries' duration, for \"the sojourning of the children of\nIsrael, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years; and at\nthe end of the four hundred and thirty years all the hosts of the Lord\nwent out from the land of Egypt.\" So the Passover we now celebrate\ncommemorates the closing of another world drama of almost precisely the\nsame length, and one of deepest significance, as well as unsurpassed\nhistoric interest. These world dramas are lengthy affairs; for, while we\nmen are always in a hurry, the Almighty never is: on the contrary, as\nthe Psalmist observed, so now, \"a thousand years in his sight are but as\nyesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.\" The drama I\nhave referred to as this week brought to its close, is that known in\nhistory as Spanish Domination in America. It began, as we all know, on\nthe twenty-first of October, 1492; it has been continuous through six\nyears over four centuries. It now passes into history; the verdict may\nbe made up.\n\nSo far as I personally am concerned,--a matter needless to say of very\ntrifling consequence,--this verdict was rendered a year ago. It was\nsomewhat Rhadamanthine; but a twelve-month of further reflection has\nshown no cause in any respect to revise it. In referring to what was\nthen plainly impending, in December, 1897, before the blowing up of the\nbattleship _Maine_, before a conflict had become inevitable, I used this\nlanguage in a paper read to the Massachusetts Historical Society: \"When\nlooking at the vicissitudes of human development, we are apt to assume a\ncertain air of optimism, and take advancement as the law of being, as a\nthing of course, indisputable. We are charitable, too; and to deny to\nany given race or people some degree of use in the economy of Nature, or\nthe plan of Creation, is usually regarded as indicative of narrowness of\nview. The fatal, final word \"pessimist\" is apt to be whispered in\nconnection with the name of one who ventures to suggest a doubt of this\nphase of the doctrine known as Universalism. And yet, at this time when,\nbefore our eyes, it is breathing its last, I want some one to point out\na single good thing in law, or science, or art, or literature,--material,\nmoral or intellectual,--which has resulted to the race of man upon earth\nfrom Spanish domination in America. I have tried to think of one in\nvain. It certainly has not yielded an immortality, an idea, or a\ndiscovery; it has, in fact, been one long record of reaction and\nretrogression, than which few pages in the record of mankind have been\nmore discouraging or less fruitful of good. What is now taking place in\nCuba is historical. It is the dying out of a dominion, the influence of\nwhich will be seen and felt for centuries in the life of two continents;\njust as what is taking place in Turkey is the last fierce flickering up\nof Asiatic rule in Europe, on the very spot where twenty-four centuries\nago Asiatic rule in Europe was thought to have been averted forever. The\ntwo, Ottoman rule in Europe, and Spanish rule in America, now stand at\nthe bar of history; and, scanning the long four-century record of each,\nI have been unable to see what either has contributed to the accumulated\npossessions of the human race, or why both should not be classed among\nthe many instances of the arrested civilization of a race, developing by\ndegrees an irresistible tendency to retrogression.\"\n\nThis, one year ago; and while the embers of the last Greco-Turkish\nstruggle, still white, were scarcely cold on the plain of Marathon. The\ntime since passed has yielded fresh proof in support of this harsh\njudgment; for, if there is one historical law better and more\nirreversibly established than another, it is that, in the case of\nnations even more than in the case of individuals, their sins will find\nthem out,--the day of reckoning may not be escaped. Noticeably, has\nthis proved so in the case of Spain. The year 1500 may be said to have\nfound that country at the apex of her greatness. America had then been\nnewly discovered; the Moor was just subdued. Nearly half a century\nbefore (1453) the Roman Empire had fallen, and, with the storming of\nConstantinople by the Saracens, disappeared from the earth. That event,\nit may be mentioned in passing, closed another world drama continuous\nthrough twenty-two centuries,--upon the whole the most wonderful of the\nseries. And so, when Roman empire vanished, that of Spain began. It was\nushered in by the landfall of Columbus; and when, just three hundred\nyears later, in 1792, the subject was discussed in connection with its\nthird centennial, the general verdict of European thinkers was that the\ndiscovery of America had, upon the whole, been to mankind the reverse of\nbeneficent. This conclusion has since been commented upon with derision;\nyet, when made, it was right. The United States had in 1792 just\nstruggled into existence, and its influence on the course of human\nevents had not begun to make itself felt. Those who considered the\nsubject had before them, therefore, only Spanish domination in America,\nand upon that their verdict cannot be gainsaid; for, from the year 1492\ndown, the history of Spain and Spanish domination has undeniably been\none long series of crimes and violations of natural law, the penalty for\nwhich has not apparently even yet been exacted in full.\n\nOf those national crimes four stand out in special prominence,\nconstituting counts in a national indictment than which history shows\nfew more formidable. These four were: (1) The expulsion, first, of the\nJews, and then of the Moors, or Moriscoes, from Spain, late in the\nfifteenth and early in the sixteenth centuries; (2) the annals of \"the\nCouncil of Blood\" in the Netherlands, and the eighty years of\ninternecine warfare through which Holland fought its way out from under\nSpanish rule; (3) the Inquisition, the most ingenious human machinery\never invented to root out and destroy whatever a people had that was\nintellectually most alert, inquisitive, and progressive; and, finally\n(4), the policy of extermination, and, where not of extermination, of\ncruel oppression, systematically pursued towards the aborigines of\nAmerica. Into the grounds on which the different counts of this\nindictment rest it would be impossible now to enter. Were it desirable\nso to do, time would not permit. Suffice it to say, the penalty had to\nbe paid to the uttermost farthing; and one large instalment fell due,\nand was mercilessly exacted, during the year now drawing to its close.\nSpanish domination in America ceased,--the drama ended as it was\nentering on its fifth century,--and it can best be dismissed with the\nsolemn words of Abraham Lincoln, uttered more than thirty years ago,\nwhen contemplating a similar expiation we were ourselves paying in blood\nand grief for a not dissimilar violation of an everlasting law,--\"Yet,\nif God wills that this mighty scourge continue until all the wealth\npiled by the bondsmen's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil\nshall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be\npaid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years\nago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and\nrighteous altogether!'\"\n\nBut not only is this year memorable as witnessing the downfall and\ncomplete extirpation of that Spanish rule in America which began with\nColumbus, but the result, when it at last came about, was marked by\nincidents more curiously fitting and dramatic than it would have been\npossible for a Shakspeare to have conceived. Columbus, as we all know,\nstumbled, as it were, on America as he sailed west in search of\nAsia,--Cipango he was looking for, and he found Cuba. It is equally well\nknown that he never discovered his mistake. When fourteen years later he\ndied, it was in the faith that, through him, Europe had by a westward\nmovement established itself in the archipelagoes of Asia. And now, at\nlast, four centuries afterward, the blow which did most to end the\nAmerican domination he established was struck in Asiatic waters; and,\nthrough it and the descendants of another race, America seems on the\nthreshold of realizing the mistaken belief of Columbus, and by a\nwestward movement establishing the European in that very archipelago\nColumbus failed to reach. The ways of Providence are certainly not less\nsingular than slow in movement.\n\nBut the year just ending was veritably one of surprises,--for the\nhistorical student it would, indeed, seem as if 1898 was destined to\npass into the long record as almost the Year of Surprises. We now come\nto the consideration of some of these wholly unanticipated results from\nthe American point of view. And in entering on this aspect of the\nquestion, it is necessary once more to remind you that we are doing it\nin the historical spirit, and from the historical point of view. We are\nstating facts not supposed to admit of denial. The argument and\ninferences to be drawn from those facts do not belong to this occasion.\nSome will reach one conclusion as to the future, and the bearing those\nfacts have upon its probable development, and some will reach another\nconclusion; with these conclusions we have nothing to do. Our business\nis exclusively with the facts.\n\nSpeaking largely, but still with all necessary historical accuracy,\nAmerica has been peopled, and its development, up to the present time,\nworked out through two great stocks of the European family,--the\nSpanish-speaking stock, and the English-speaking stock. In their\ndevelopment these two have pursued lines, clearly marked, but curiously\ndivergent. Leaving the Spanish-speaking branch out of the discussion, as\nunnecessary to it, it may without exaggeration be said of the\nEnglish-speaking branch that, from the beginning down to this year now\nending, its development has been one long protest against, and\ndivergence from, Old World methods and ideals. In the case of those\ndescended from the Forefathers,--as we always designate the Plymouth\ncolony,--this has been most distinctly marked, ethnically, politically,\nindustrially.\n\nAmerica was the sphere where the European, as a colonist, a settler,\nfirst came on a large scale in contact with another race. Heretofore, in\nthe Old World, when one stock had overrun another,--and history\npresented many examples of it,--the invading stock, after subduing, and\nto a great extent driving out, the stock which had preceded in the\noccupancy of a region, settled gradually down into a common possession,\nand, in the slow process of years, an amalgamation of stocks, more or\nless complete, took place. In America, with the Anglo-Saxon, and\nespecially those of the New England type, this was not the case. Unlike\nthe Frenchman at the north, or the Spaniard at the south, the\nAnglo-Saxon showed no disposition to ally himself with the\naborigines,--he evinced no faculty of dealing with inferior races, as\nthey are called, except through a process of extermination. Here in\nMassachusetts this was so from the outset. Nearly every one here has\nread Longfellow's poem, \"The Courtship of Miles Standish,\" and calls to\nmind the short, sharp conflict between the Plymouth captain and the\nIndian chief, Pecksuot, and how those God-fearing Pilgrims ruthlessly\nput to death by stabbing and hanging a sufficient number of the already\nplague-stricken and dying aborigines. That episode occurred in April,\n1623, only a little more than two years after the landing we to-night\ncelebrate, and was, so far as New England is concerned, the beginning of\na series of wars which did not end until the Indian ceased to be an\nelement in our civilization. When John Robinson, the revered pastor of\nthe Plymouth church, received tidings at Leyden of that killing near\nPlymouth,--for Robinson never got across the Atlantic,--he wrote: \"Oh,\nhow happy a thing had it been, if you had converted some before you had\nkilled any! There is cause to fear that, by occasion, especially of\nprovocation, there may be wanting that tenderness of the life of man\n(made after God's image) which is meet. It is also a thing more glorious\nin men's eyes, than pleasing in God's or convenient for Christians, to\nbe a terror to poor, barbarous people.\" This all has a very familiar\nsound. It is the refrain of nearly three centuries; but, as an\nhistorical fact, it is undeniable that, from 1623 down to the year now\nending, the American Anglo-Saxon has in his dealings with what are known\nas the \"inferior races\" lacked \"that tenderness of the life of man which\nis meet,\" and he has made himself \"a terror to poor, barbarous people.\"\nHow we of Massachusetts carried ourselves towards the aborigines here,\nthe fearful record of the Pequot war remains everlastingly to tell. How\nthe country at large has carried itself in turn towards Indian, African,\nand Asiatic is matter of history. And yet it is equally matter of\nhistory that this carriage, term it what you will,--unchristian, brutal,\nexterminating,--has been the salvation of the race. It has saved the\nAnglo-Saxon stock from being a nation of half-breeds,--miscegenates, to\ncoin a word expressive of an idea. The Canadian half-breed, the\nMexican, the mulatto, say what men may, are not virile or enduring\nraces; and that the Anglo-Saxon is none of these, and is essentially\nvirile and enduring, is due to the fact that the less developed races\nperished before him. Nature is undeniably often brutal in its methods.\n\nAgain, and on the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon when he came to America\nleft behind him, so far as he himself was concerned, feudalism and all\nthings pertaining to caste, including what was then known in England,\nand is still known in Germany, as Divine Right. When he at last\nenunciated his political faith he put in the forefront of his\ndeclaration as \"self-evident truths,\" the principles \"that all men are\ncreated equal;\" that they are endowed with \"certain inalienable rights,\"\namong them \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;\" and that\ngovernments derived \"their just powers from the consent of the\ngoverned.\" Now what was meant here by the phrase \"all men are created\nequal?\" We know they are not. They are not created equal in physical or\nmental endowment; nor are they created with equal opportunity. The world\nbristles with inequalities, natural and artificial. This is so; and yet\nthe declaration is none the less true;--true when made; true now; true\nfor all future time. The reference was to the inequalities which always\nhad marked, then did, and still do, mark, the political life of the Old\nWorld,--to Caste, Divine Right, Privilege. It declared that all men were\ncreated equal before the law, as before the Lord;[1] and that, whether\nEuropean, American, Asiatic, or African, they were endowed with an\ninalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And to\nthis truth, as he saw it, Lincoln referred in those memorable words I\nhave already cited bearing on our national crime in long forgetfulness\nof our own immutable principles. The fundamental, primal principle was\nindeed more clearly voiced by Lincoln than it has been voiced before, or\nsince, in declaring again, and elsewhere that to our nation, dedicated\n\"to the proposition that all men are created equal,\" has by Providence\nbeen assigned the momentous task of \"testing whether any nation so\nconceived and so dedicated can long endure,\" and \"that government of the\npeople, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.\"\n\nThe next cardinal principle in our policy as a race--that instinctive\npolicy I have already referred to as divergent from Old World methods\nand ideals--was most dearly enunciated by Washington in his Farewell\nAddress, that \"the great rule for us in regard to foreign nations is, in\nextending our commercial relations, to have with them as little\npolitical connection as possible;\" that it was \"unwise in us to\nimplicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of\n[Old World] policies, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her\nfriendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and\nenables us to pursue a different course.... Taking care always to keep\nourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,\nwe may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary\nemergencies.\"\n\nAccepting this as firm ground from which to act, we afterwards put forth\nwhat is known as the Monroe Doctrine. Having announced that our purpose\nwas, in homely language, to mind our own business, we warned the outer\nworld that we did not propose to permit by that outer world any\ninterference in what did not concern it. America was our field,--a field\namply large for our development. It was therefore declared that, while\nwe had never taken any part, nor did it comport with our policy to do\nso, in the wars of European politics, with the movements in this\nhemisphere we are, of necessity, more intimately connected. \"We owe it,\ntherefore, to candor to declare that we should consider any attempt [on\nthe part of European powers] to extend their system to any portion of\nthis hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.\"\n\nOn these principles of government and of foreign policy we have as a people\nnow acted for more than seventy years. They have been exemplified and\ndeveloped in various directions, and resulted in details--commercial,\neconomic, and ethnic--which have given rise to political issues, long and\nhotly contested, but which, in their result from the purely historical\npoint of view, do not admit of dispute. Commercially, we have adopted what\nis known as a system protective both of our industries and our labor.\nEconomically, we have carefully eschewed large and costly armaments, and\nexpensive governmental methods. Ethnically, we have avowed our desire to\nhave as little contact as possible with less developed races, lamenting the\npresence of the African, and severely excluding the Asiatic. These facts,\nwhether we as individuals and citizens wholly approve--or do not approve at\nall--of the course pursued and the results reached, admit of no dispute.\nNeither can it be denied that our attitude, whether it in all respects\ncommanded the respect of foreign nations, or failed to command it, was\naccepted, and has prevailed. Striking illustrations of this at once suggest\nthemselves.\n\nIn one respect especially was our attitude peculiar, and in its\npeculiarity we took great pride. It was largely moral; but, though\nlargely moral, it had behind it the consciousness of strength in\nourselves, and its recognition by others. In great degree, and\nrelatively, an unarmed people, we looked with amaze, which had in it\nsomething of amusement, at the constantly growing armaments and war\nbudgets of the nations of Europe. We saw them, like the warriors of the\nmiddle ages, crushed under the weight of their weapons of offence, and\ntheir preparations for defence. Meanwhile, fortunate in our geographical\nposition,--weak for offence, but, in turn, unassailable,--we went in and\nout much as an unarmed man, relying on his character, his recognized\nforce, position, and peaceful calling, daily moves about in our frontier\nsettlements and mining camps amid throngs of men armed to the teeth with\nrevolvers and bowie knives. Yet, evidence was not lacking of the\nconsideration yielded to us when we were called upon, or felt called\nupon, to assert ourselves. I will not refer to the episode of 1866,\nwhen, in accordance with the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, we\nintimated to France that her immediate withdrawal from Mexico was\ndesired; for then we had not laid down the arms we had taken up in the\nRebellion. But, without remonstrance even, France withdrew. In 1891,\nunder circumstances not without grounds of aggravation against us, a mob\nin Valparaiso assaulted some seamen from our ships of war. Instant\napology and redress were demanded; and the demand was complied with. Yet\nlater, the course pursued by us in the Venezuela matter is too fresh in\nmemory to call for more than a reference. These are all matters of\nhistory. When did our word fail to carry all desired weight?\n\nSuch were our standing, our traditional policy, and our record at the\nbeginning of the year now ending. No proposition advanced admits, it is\nbelieved, of dispute historically. Into the events of the year 1898 it\nis not necessary to enter in any detail. They are in the minds of all.\nIt is sufficient to say that the primary object for which we entered\nupon the late war with Spain was to bring to an end the long and\naltogether bad record of Spanish rule in America. In taking the steps\ndeemed necessary to effect this result, Congress went out of its way,\nand publicly and formally put upon record its disclaimer of any\nintention to enter upon a war of conquest, asserting its determination,\nwhen Spanish domination was ended, to leave the government of Cuba, and\npresumably of any other islands similarly acquired, to the people\nthereof. As an incident to our naval operations on the Pacific, the\nisland of Hawaii was then annexed to the United States as an\nextra-territorial possession, or coaling station, this being effected by\na joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, under the precedent of\n1845 established in the case of Texas,--a method of procedure the\nconstitutionality of which was at the time formally called in question\nby the State of Massachusetts, and against which Mr. Webster made\nvigorous protest in the Senate. In thus possessing ourselves of Hawaii,\nthe consent of the native inhabitants was not considered necessary; we\ndealt wholly with an oligarchical _de facto_ government, representing\nthe foreign element, mainly American, there resident.\n\nShortly after the acquisition of Hawaii, we, as the result of brilliant\nnaval operations and successes, acquired possession of the harbor of\nManila, in the Philippine archipelago, and finally the city and some\nadjacent territory were surrendered to us. A treaty was then negotiated,\nthe power of Spain being completely broken, under which she abandoned\nall claims of sovereignty, not only over the island of Cuba, the\noriginal cause of war, but over various other islands in the Philippine,\nas well as in the West Indian, archipelagoes. These islands, in all said\nto be some 1,200 to 1,500 in number, are moreover not only inhabited by\nboth natives and foreigners to the estimated number of ten to twelve\nmillion of souls, but they contain large cities and communities speaking\ndifferent tongues, living under other laws, and having customs, manners,\nand traditions wholly unlike our own, and which, in the case of the\nPhilippines, do not admit of assimilation. Situated in the tropics also,\nthey cannot gradually become colonized by Americans, with or without the\ndisappearance of the native population. The American can only go there\nfor temporary residence.\n\nA wholly new problem was thus suddenly presented to the people of the\nUnited States. On the one hand, it is asserted that, by destroying\nSpanish government in these islands, the United States has assumed\nresponsibility for them, both to the inhabitants and to the world. This\nis a moral obligation. On the other hand, trade and commercial\ninducements are held out which would lead us to treat these islands\nsimply as a commencement--the first instalment--in a system of unlimited\nextra-territorial dependencies and imperial expansion. With these\nresponsibilities and obligations we here this evening have nothing to\ndo, any more than we have to do with the expediency or probable results\nof the policy of colonial expansion, when once fairly adopted and\nfinally entered upon. These hereafter will be, but are not yet,\nhistorical questions; and we are merely historical inquirers. We,\ntherefore, no matter what others may do, must try to confine ourselves\nto our own proper business and functions.\n\nMy purpose, therefore, is not to argue for or against what is now\nproposed, but simply to test historically some of the arguments I have\nheard most commonly advanced in favor of the proposed policy of\nexpansion, and thus see to what they apparently lead in the sequence of\nhuman, and more especially of American, events. Do they indicate an\nhistoric continuity? Or do they result in what is geologically known as\na \"fault,\"--a movement, as the result of force, through which a stratum,\nonce continuous, becomes disconnected?\n\nIn the first place, then, as respects the inhabitants of the vastly\ngreater number of the dependencies already acquired, and, under the\npolicy of imperialistic expansion, hereafter to be acquired. It is\nargued that we, as a people at once dominant and Christian, are under an\nobligation to avail ourselves of the opportunity the Almighty, in his\ninfinite wisdom, has thrust upon us,--some say the plain call he has\nuttered to us,--to go forth, and impart to the barbarian and the heathen\nthe blessings of liberty and the Bible. A mission is imposed upon us.\nViewed in the cold, pitiless light of history,--and that is the only way\nwe here can view them,--\"divine missions\" and \"providential calls\" are\nquestionable things; things the assumption and fulfilment of which are\napt to be at variance. So far as the American is concerned, as I have\nalready pointed out, the historic precedents are not encouraging.\nWhatever his theories, ethnical, political, or religious, his practice\nhas been as pronounced as it was masterful. From the earliest days at\nWessagusset and in the Pequot war, down to the very last election held\nin North Carolina,--from 1623 to 1898,--the knife and the shotgun have\nbeen far more potent and active instruments in his dealings with the\ninferior races than the code of liberty or the output of the Bible\nSociety. The record speaks for itself. So far as the Indian is\nconcerned, the story has been told by Mrs. Jackson in her earnest,\neloquent protest, entitled \"A Century of Dishonor.\" It has received\nepigrammatic treatment in the saying tersely enunciated by one of our\nmilitary commanders, and avowedly accepted by the others, that \"the only\ngood Indian is a dead Indian.\" So far as the African is concerned, the\nsimilar apothegm once was that \"the black man has no rights the white\nman is bound to respect;\" or, as Stephen A. Douglas defined his position\nbefore an applauding audience, \"I am for the white man as against the\nblack man, and for the black man against the alligator.\" Recent lynching\nand shotgun experiences, too fresh in memory to call for reminder, and\ntoo painful in detail to describe, give us at least reason to pause\nbefore we leave our own hearthstone to seek new and distant fields for\nmissionary labors. It remains to consider the Asiatic. The racial\nantipathy of the American towards him has been more intense than towards\nany other species of the human race. This, as an historical fact, has\nbeen recently imbedded in our statute-book, having previously been\nillustrated in a series of outrages and massacres, with the sickening\ndetails of some of which it was at one time my misfortune to be\nofficially familiar. Under these circumstances, so far as the\ncirculation of the Bible and the extension of the blessings of liberty\nare concerned, history affords small encouragement to the American to\nassume new obligations. He has been, and now is, more than merely\ndelinquent in the fulfilment of obligations heretofore thrust upon him,\nor knowingly assumed. In this respect his instinct has proved much more\nof a controlling factor than his ethics,--the shotgun has unfortunately\nbeen more constantly in evidence than the Bible. As a prominent\n\"expansionist\" New England member of the present Congress has recently\ndeclared in language, brutal perhaps in directness, but withal\ncommendably free from cant: \"China is succumbing to the inevitable, and\nthe United States, if she would not retire to the background, must\nadvance along the line with the other great nations. She must acquire\nnew territory, providing new markets over which she must maintain\ncontrol. The Anglo-Saxon advances into the new regions with a Bible in\none hand and a shotgun in the other. The inhabitants of those regions\nthat he cannot convert with the aid of the Bible and bring into his\nmarkets, he gets rid of with the shotgun. It is but another\ndemonstration of the survival of the fittest.\" (Hon. C.A. Sulloway,\nRochester, N.H., Nov. 22, 1898.)\n\nNext as regards our fundamental principles of equality of human rights,\nand the consent of the governed as the only just basis of all\ngovernment. The presence of the inferior races on our own soil, and our\nnew problems connected with them in our dependencies, have led to much\nquestioning of the correctness of those principles, which, for its\noutspoken frankness, at least, is greatly to be commended. It is argued\nthat these, as principles, in the light of modern knowledge and\nconditions, are of doubtful general truth and limited application. True,\nwhen confined and carefully applied to citizens of the same blood and\nnationality; questionable, when applied to human beings of different\nrace in one nationality; manifestly false, in the case of races less\ndeveloped, and in other, especially tropical, countries.[2] As\nfundamental principles, it is admitted, they were excellent for a young\npeople struggling into recognition and limiting its attention narrowly\nto what only concerned itself; but have we not manifestly outgrown them,\nnow that we ourselves have developed into a great World Power? For such\nthere was and necessarily always will be, as between the superior and\nthe inferior races, a manifest common sense foundation in caste, and in\nthe rule of might when it presents itself in the form of what we are\npleased to call Manifest Destiny. As to government being conditioned on\nthe consent of the governed, it is obviously the bounden duty of the\nsuperior race to hold the inferior race in peaceful tutelage, and\nprotect it against itself; and, furthermore, when it comes to deciding\nthe momentous question of what races are superior and what inferior,\nwhat dominant and what subject, that is of necessity a question to be\nsettled between the superior race and its own conscience; and one in\nregard to the correct settlement of which it indicates a tendency at\nonce unpatriotic and \"pessimistic,\" to assume that America could by any\nchance decide otherwise than correctly. Upon that score we must put\nimplicit confidence in the sound instincts and Christian spirit of the\ndominant, that is, the stronger race.\n\nIt is the same with that other fundamental principle with which the name\nof Lexington is, from the historical point of view, so closely\nassociated,--I refer, of course, to the revolutionary contention that\nrepresentation is a necessary adjunct to taxation. This principle also,\nit is frankly argued, we have outgrown, in presence of our new\nresponsibilities; and, as between the superior and inferior races, it is\nsubject to obvious limitations. Here again, as between the policy of the\n\"Open Door\" and the Closed-Colonial-Market policy, the superior race is\namenable to its own conscience only. It will doubtless on all suitable\nand convenient occasions bear in mind that it is a \"Trustee for\nCivilization.\"\n\nFinally, as respects entangling foreign alliances, and their necessary\nconsequents, costly and burdensome armaments and large standing armies,\nwe are again advised that, having ceased to be children, we should put\naway childish things. Having become a great World Power we must become a\ncorresponding War Power. We are assured by high authority that, were\nWashington now alive, it cannot be questioned he would in all these\nrespects modify materially the views expressed in the Farewell Address,\nas being obviously inapplicable to existing conditions. Under these\ncircumstances, and in view of the obligations we have assumed, the\nPresident, and Secretaries of War and the Navy, recommend an\nestablishment the annual cost of which ($200,000,000), exclusive of\nmilitary pensions, is in excess of the largest of those European War\nBudgets, over the crushing influence of which we have expressed a\ntraditional wonder, not unmixed with pity for the unfortunate tax-payer.\n\nHistorically speaking, I believe these are all facts, susceptible of\nverification. I do not mean to say that the arguments developing obvious\nlimitations in the application of the principles of the Declaration and\nthe Constitution have been avowedly accepted by our representatives, or\nofficially incorporated into our domestic and foreign policy. I do\nassert as an historical fact that these arguments have been advanced,\nand are meeting, both in Congress and with the press, a large degree of\nacceptance. And hence comes a singular and most significant conclusion\nfrom which, historically, there seems to be no escape. It may or it may\nnot be fortunate and right; it may or it may not lead to beneficent\nfuture results; it may or it may not contribute to the good of mankind.\nThose questions belong elsewhere than in the rooms of an historical\nsociety. Upon them we are not called to pass,--they belong to the\npolitician, the publicist, the philosopher, not to us. But, as\nhistorical investigators, and so observing the sequence of events, it\ncannot escape our notice that on every one of the fundamental principles\ndiscussed,--whether ethnic, economical, or political,--we abandon the\ntraditional and distinctively American grounds and accept those of\nEurope, and especially of Great Britain, which heretofore we have made\nit the basis of our faith to deny and repudiate.\n\nWith this startling proposition in mind, consider again the several\npropositions advanced; and first, as regards the so-called inferior\nraces. Our policy towards them, instinctive and formulated, has been\neither to exclude or destroy, or to leave them in the fullness of time\nto work out their own destiny, undisturbed by us; fully believing that,\nin this way, we in the long run best subserved the interests of mankind.\nEurope, and Great Britain especially, adopted the opposite policy. They\nheld that it was incumbent on the superior to go forth and establish\ndominion over the inferior race, and to hold and develop vast imperial\npossessions and colonial dependencies. They saw their interest and duty\nin developing systems of docile tutelage; we sought our inspirations in\nthe rough school of self-government. Under this head the result then is\ndistinct, clean cut, indisputable. To this conclusion have we come at\nlast. The Old World, Europe and Great Britain, were, after all, right,\nand we of the New World have been wrong. From every point of\nview,--religious, ethnic, commercial, political,--we cannot, it is now\nclaimed, too soon abandon our traditional position and assume theirs.\nAgain, Europe and Great Britain have never admitted that men were\ncreated equal, or that the consent of the governed was a condition of\ngovernment. They have, on the contrary, emphatically denied both\npropositions. We now concede that, after all, there was great basis for\ntheir denial; that, certainly, it must be admitted, our forefathers were\nhasty at least in reaching their conclusions,--they generalized too\nbroadly. We do not frankly avow error, and we still think the assent of\nthe governed to a government a thing desirable to be secured, under\nsuitable circumstances and with proper limitations; but, if it cannot\nconveniently be secured, we are advised on New England senatorial\nauthority that \"the consent of some of the governed\" will be sufficient,\nwe ourselves selecting those proper to be consulted. Thus in such cases\nas certain islands of the Antilles, Hawaii, and the communities of Asia,\nwe admit that, so far as the principles at the basis of the Declaration\nare concerned, Great Britain was right, and our ancestors were, not\nperhaps wrong, but too general, and of the eighteenth century, in their\nstatements. To that extent, we have outgrown the Declaration of 1776,\nand have become as wise now as Great Britain was then. At any rate we\nare not above learning. As was long ago said,--\"Only dead men and idiots\nnever change;\" and the people of the United States are nothing unless\nopen-minded.\n\nSo, also, as respects the famous Boston \"tea-party,\" and taxation\nwithout representation. Great Britain then affirmed this right in the\ncase of colonies and dependencies. Taught by the lesson of our War of\nIndependence, she has since abandoned it. We now take it up, and are\nto-day, as one of the new obligations towards the heathen imposed upon\nus by Providence, formulating systems of imposts and tariffs for our new\ndependencies, wholly distinct from our own, and directly inhibited by\nour constitution, in regard to which systems those dependencies have no\nrepresentative voice. They are not to be consulted as to the kind of\ndoor, \"open\" or \"closed,\" behind which they are to exist. In taking this\nposition it is difficult to see why we must not also incidentally admit\nthat, in the great contention preceding our War of Independence, the\nfirst armed clash of which resounded here in Lexington, Great Britain\nwas more nearly right than the exponents of the principles for which\nthose \"embattled farmers\" contended.\n\nAgain, consider the Monroe Doctrine, entangling foreign alliances, and\nthe consequent and costly military and naval establishments. The Monroe\nDoctrine had two sides, the abstention of the Old World from\ninterference in American affairs, based on our abstention from\ninterference in the affairs of the Old World. But it is now argued we\nhave outgrown the Monroe Doctrine, or at least the latter branch of it.\nIt is certainly so considered in Europe; for, only a few days ago, so\neminent an authority as Lord Farrar exultingly exclaimed in addressing\nthe Cobden Club,--\"America has burned the swaddling clothes of the\nMonroe Doctrine.\" Indeed we have, in discussion at least, gone far in\nadvance of the mere burning of cast-off infantile clothing, and\nalliances with Great Britain and Japan, as against France and Russia,\nare freely mooted, with a view to the forcible partition of China, to\nwhich we are to be a party, and of it a beneficiary. For it is already\navowed that the Philippines are but a \"stopping-place\" on the way to the\ncontinent of Asia; and China, unlike Poland, is inhabited by an\n\"inferior race,\" in regard to whom, as large possible consumers of\nsurplus products, Providence has imposed on us obvious obligations,\nmaterial as well as benevolent and religious, which it would be unlike\nourselves to disregard. It is the mandate of duty, we are told,--the\nnations of Europe obey it, and can we do less than they? \"Isolation\" it\nis then argued is but another name for an attention to one's own\nbusiness which may well become excessive, and result in selfishness. It\nis true that the nations of the Old World have not heretofore erred\nconspicuously in this respect; and as the \"Balance of Power\" was the\nword-juggle with which to conjure up wars and armaments in the\neighteenth century, so the \"Division of Trade\" may not impossibly prove\nthe similar conjuring word-juggle of the twentieth century.\nNevertheless, \"isolation\" is not compatible with the policy of a Great\nNation under a call to assert itself as a World Power. Then follows the\nfamiliar argument in favor of costly military and naval establishments.\nBut, upon this head it is needless to restate our traditional\npolicy,--our jealousy as a people of militarism and large standing\narmies, to be used, if occasion calls, as a reserve police. Our record\nthereon is so plain that repetition grows tedious. The record of Europe,\nand especially of Great Britain as distinguished from other European\npowers, has been equally plain, and is no less indisputable. In this\nrespect, also, always under compulsion, we now admit our error. Costly\narmies are necessary to the maintenance of order, Heaven's first law;\nand World Powers cannot maintain peace, and themselves, without powerful\nnavies and frequent coaling stations.\n\nFinally, even on such matters as the Protective System and the\nencouragement of American Labor, as against the \"Pauper Labor\" of Europe\nand of the inferior races, Great Britain has for half a century now\nadvocated the principle of unrestricted industry and free trade,--that\nis the \"Open Door\" policy logically carried to its final results. We\nhave denied it, establishing what we in time grew to call the\ndistinctive American system. It is, however, now asserted that \"Trade\nfollows the Flag,\" and that, as respects dependencies at least, the\n\"Open Door\" policy is the best policy. If \"Trade follows the Flag\" in\ndependencies, and, by so doing, affords the American producer all\nneedful protection and every fair advantage in those dependencies, it is\nnot at once apparent why it fails so to do at home. Is it less docile\nto the flag, less in harmony with and subservient to it, in the United\nStates, within our own limits, than in remote lands under that flag\nbeyond the seas? And, if so, how is such an apparent anomaly accounted\nfor? But with this question we are not concerned. That problem is for\nthe economist to solve, for in character it is commercial, not\nhistorical. The point with us is that again, as regards the \"Open\nDoor,\"--free trade and no favor, so far as all outside competition is\nconcerned, American labor and \"pauper\" labor being equally outside,--on\nthis long and hotly contested point, also, England appears on the face\nof things to have had after all much the best of the argument.\n\nAs regards \"Pauper Labor,\" indeed, the reversal contemplated of\nestablished policy in favor of European methods is specially noteworthy.\nThe labor of Asia is undeniably less well paid even than that of Europe;\nbut it is now proposed, by a single act, to introduce into our\nindustrial system ten millions of Asiatics, either directly, or through\ntheir products sold in open competition with our own; or, if we do not\ndo that, to hold them, ascribed to the soil in a sort of old Saxon\nserfdom, with the function assigned them of consuming our surplus\nproducts, but without in return sending us theirs. The great\ncounterbalancing consideration will not, of course, be forgotten that,\nlike the English in India, we also bestow on them the Blessings of\nLiberty and the Bible; provided, always, that liberty does not include\nfreedom to go to the United States, and the Bible does include the\nexcellent Old Time and Old World precept (Coloss. 3: 22), \"Servants,\nobey in all things your masters.\"\n\nIt is the same in other respects. It seems to be admitted by the\nPresident, and by the leading authorities on the imperialistic policy,\nthat it can only be carried to successful results through the agency of\na distinct governing class. Accordingly administration through the\nagency of military or naval officers is strongly urged both by the\nPresident and by Captain Mahan. Other advocates of the policy urge its\nadoption on the ground, very distinctly avowed, that it will necessitate\nan established, recognized Civil Service, modelled, they add, on that of\nGreat Britain. If, they then argue, Great Britain can extend--as,\nindeed, she unquestionably has extended--her system of dependencies all\nover the globe, developing them into the most magnificent empire the\nworld ever saw, it is absurd, unpatriotic, and pessimistic to doubt that\nwe can do the same. Are we not of the same blood, and the same speech?\nThis is all historically true. Historically it is equally true that, to\ndo it, we must employ means similar to those Great Britain has employed.\nIn other words, modelling ourselves on Great Britain, we must slowly and\nmethodically develop and build up a recognized and permanent governing\nand official class. The heathen and barbarian need to be studied, and\ndealt with intelligently and on a system; they cannot be successfully\nmanaged on any principle of rotation in office, much less one which\nascribes the spoils of office to the victors at the polls. What these\nadvocates of Imperialism say is unquestionably true: The political\nmethods now in vogue in American cities are not adapted to the\ngovernment of dependencies.\n\nThe very word \"Imperial\" is, indeed, borrowed from the Old World. As\napplied to a great system of colonial dominion and foreign dependencies\nit is English, and very modern English, also, for it was first brought\ninto vogue by the late Earl of Beaconsfield in 1879, when, by Act of\nParliament introduced by him, the Queen of England was made Empress of\nIndia. It was then he enunciated that doctrine of _imperium et\nlibertas_, the adoption of which we are now considering. While it may be\nwise and sound, it indisputably is British.\n\nThus, curiously enough, whichever way we turn and however we regard it,\nat the close of more than a century of independent existence we find\nourselves, historically speaking, involved in a mesh of contradictions\nwith our past. Under a sense of obligation, impelled by circumstances,\nperhaps to a degree influenced by ambition and commercial greed, we have\none by one abandoned our distinctive national tenets, and accepted in\ntheir place, though in some modified forms, the old-time European tenets\nand policies, which we supposed the world, actuated largely by our\nexample, was about forever to discard. Our whole record as a people is,\nof course, then ransacked and subjected to microscopic investigation,\nand every petty disregard of principle, any wrong heretofore silently,\nperhaps sadly, ignored, each unobserved or disregarded innovation of\nthe past, is magnified into a precedent justifying anything and\neverything in the future. If we formerly on some occasion swallowed a\ngnat, why now, is it asked, strain at a camel? Truths once accepted as\n\"self-evident,\" since become awkward of acceptance, were ever thus\npettifogged out of the path, and fundamental principles have in this way\nprescriptively been tampered with. It is now nearly a century and a\nquarter ago, when Great Britain was contemplating the subjection of her\nAmerican dependencies, that Edmund Burke denounced \"tampering\" with the\n\"ingenuous and noble roughness of truly constitutional materials,\" as\n\"the odious vice of restless and unstable minds.\" Historically speaking\nit is not unfair to ask if this is less so in the United States in 1898\nthan it was in Great Britain in 1775.\n\nWhat is now proposed, therefore, examined in connection with our\nprinciples and traditional policy as a nation, does apparently indicate\na break in continuity,--historically, it will probably constitute what\nis known in geology as a \"fault.\" Indeed, it is almost safe to say that\nhistory hardly records any change of base and system on the part of a\ngreat people at once so sudden, so radical, and so pregnant with\nconsequences. To the optimist,--he who has no dislike to \"Old Jewry,\" as\nthe proper receptacle for worn-out garments, personal or political,--the\noutlook is inspiring. He insensibly recalls and repeats those fine lines\nof Tennyson:\n\n    \"To-day I saw the dragon-fly\n     Come from the wells where he did lie.\n\n    \"An inner impulse rent the veil\n     Of his old husk: from head to tail\n     Came out clear plates of sapphire mail.\n\n    \"He dried his wings: like gauze they grew:\n     Thro' crofts and pastures wet with dew\n     A living flash of light he flew.\"\n\nTo others, older perhaps, but at any rate more deeply impressed with the\ndifference apt to develop between dreams and actualities, the situation\ncalls to mind a comparison, more historical it is true, but less\ninspiriting so far as a commitment to the new policy is concerned. At\nthe risk, possibly, of offending some of those present, I will venture\nto institute it. In the fourth chapter of the Gospel according to St.\nMatthew, I find this incident recorded: \"The devil taketh him [the\nSaviour] up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the\nkingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All\nthese things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.\nThen saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan. Then the devil leaveth\nhim, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.\" Now,\nhistorically speaking, and as a matter of scriptural exegesis, that this\npassage should be accepted literally is not supposable. Satan, on the\noccasion referred to, must not be taken to have presented himself to the\nSaviour _in propria persona_ with his attributes of horns, tail, and\ncloven hoof, and made an outright proposition of extra-territorial\nsovereignty. It was a parable. He who had assumed a lofty moral attitude\nwas tempted by worldly inducements to adopt a lower attitude,--that, in\na word, common among men. It was a whispering to Christ of what among\nnations, is known as \"Manifest Destiny;\" in that case, however, as\npossibly in others, it so chanced that the whispering was not from the\nAlmighty, but from Satan. Now if, instead of recognizing the source\nwhence the temptation came, and sternly saying, \"Get thee hence, Satan,\"\nChrist had seen the proposition as a new Mission,--thought, in fact,\nthat he heard a distinct call to Duty,--and so, accepting a\nResponsibility thrust upon him, had hurried down from the \"exceeding\nhigh mountain,\" and proceeded at once to lay in a supply of weapons and\nto don defensive armor, renouncing his peaceful mission, he would have\ndone exactly--what Mohammed did six centuries later!\n\nI do not for a moment mean to suggest that, as respects the voice of\n\"Manifest Destiny,\" there is any similarity between the case of the\nSaviour and that which we, as a people, are now considering. I am not a\nprophet, nor do I claim prophetic insight. We are merely historical\ninvestigators, and, as such, not admitted into the councils of the\nAlmighty. Others doubtless are, or certainly claim to be. They know\nevery time, and at once, whether it is the inspiration of God or the\ndevil; and forthwith proclaim it from the house-tops. We must admit--at\nany rate no evidence in our possession enables us to deny--the\nconfidential relations such claim to have with either or both of the\nagencies in question,--the Divine or the Infernal. All I now have in\nmind is to call attention to the obvious similarity of the positions. As\ncompared with the ideals and tenets then in vogue,--principles of\nmanhood, equality before the law, freedom, peace on earth, and good-will\nto men,--the United States, heretofore and seen in a large way, has,\namong nations, assumed a peculiar, and, from the moral point of view,\nunquestionably a lofty attitude. Speaking historically it might, and\nwith no charge of levity, be compared with a similar moral attitude\nassumed among men eighteen centuries before by the Saviour. It\ndiscountenanced armaments and warfare; it advocated arbitrations, and\nbowed to their awards; spreading its arms and protection over the New\nWorld, it refused to embroil itself in the complications of the Old;\nabove all, it set a not unprofitable example to the nations of benefits\nincident to minding one's own business, and did not arrogate to itself\nthe character of a favorite and inspired instrument in the hands of God.\nIt even went so far as to assume that, in working out the inscrutable\nways of Providence, character, self-restraint, and moral grandeur were\nin the long run as potent in effecting results as iron-clads and\ngatling-guns.\n\nThose who now advocate a continuance of this policy are, as neatly as\nwittily, referred to in discussion, \"for want of a better name,\" as\n\"Little Americans,\" just as in history the believers in the long-run\nefficacy of the doctrines of Christ might be termed \"Little Gospellers,\"\nto distinguish them from the admirers of the later, but more brilliant\nand imperial, dispensation of Mohammed. That the earlier, and less\nimmediately ambitious, doctrine was, in the case of the United States,\nonly temporary, and is now outgrown, and must, therefore, be abandoned\nin favor of Old World methods, especially those pursued with such\nstriking success by Great Britain, is possible. As historical\ninvestigators we have long since learned that it is the unexpected which\nin the development of human affairs is most apt to occur. Who, for\ninstance, in our own recent history could ever have foreseen that, in\nthe inscrutable ways of the Almighty, the great triumph of Slavery in\nthe annexation of Texas, and the spoliation of that inferior race which\ninhabited Mexico, was, within fifteen years only, to result in what\nLincoln called that \"terrible war\" in which every drop of blood ever\ndrawn by the lash was paid by another drawn by the sword? Again, in May,\n1856, a Representative of South Carolina struck down a Senator from\nMassachusetts in the Senate-chamber at Washington; in January, 1865,\nMassachusetts battalions bivouacked beside the smoking ruins of South\nCarolina's capital. Verily, as none know better than we, the ways of\nProvidence are mysterious, and past finding out. None the less, though\nit cannot be positively asserted that the world would not have been\nwiser, more advanced, and better ordered had Christ, when on that\n\"exceeding high mountain,\" heard in the words then whispered in his ear\na manifest call of Duty, and felt a Responsibility thrust upon him to\nsecure the kingdoms of the earth for the Blessings of Liberty and the\nBible by so small a sacrifice as making an apparently meaningless\nobeisance to Satan, yet we can certainly say that the world would now\nhave been very different from what it is had He so done. And so in the\ncase of the United States, though we cannot for a moment assert that its\nfate and the future of the world will not be richer, better, and\nbrighter from its abandonment of New World traditions and policies in\nfavor of the traditions and policies of the Old World, we can say\nwithout any hesitation that the course of history will be greatly\nchanged by the so doing.\n\nIn any event the experiment will be one of surpassing interest to the\nhistorical observer. Some years ago James Russell Lowell was asked by\nthe French historian, Guizot, how long the Republic of the United States\nmight reasonably be expected to endure. Mr. Lowell's reply has always\nbeen considered peculiarly happy. \"So long,\" said he, \"as the ideas of\nits founders continue dominant.\" In due course of time we, or those who\nfollow us, will know whether Mr. Lowell diagnosed the situation\ncorrectly, or otherwise. Meanwhile, I do not know how I can better bring\nto an end this somewhat lengthy contribution to the occasion, than by\nrepeating, as singularly applicable to the conditions in which we find\nourselves, these verses from a recent poem, than which I have heard none\nin the days that now are which strike a deeper or a truer chord, or one\nmore appropriate to this New England Paschal eve:\n\n    \"The tumult and the shouting dies,\n       The captains and the kings depart;\n     Still stands thine ancient sacrifice,\n       An humble and a contrite heart.\n     Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,\n     Lest we forget--lest we forget!\n\n    \"Far-called our navies melt away,\n       On dune and headline sinks the fire--\n     Lo, all our pomp of yesterday\n       Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!\n     Judge of the nations, spare us yet,\n     Lest we forget--lest we forget!\n\n    \"If, drunk with sight of power, we loose\n       Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,\n     Such boasting as the Gentiles use\n       Or lesser breeds without the law--\n     Lord God of hosts, be with us yet,\n     Lest we forget--lest we forget!\n\n    \"For heathen heart that puts her trust\n       In reeking tube and iron shard--\n     All valiant dust that builds on dust,\n       And guarding calls not Thee to guard--\n     For frantic boast and foolish word,\n     Thy mercy on thy people, Lord!\n                         Amen.\"\n\nTaken in connection with the foregoing paper, the following-letter,\naddressed to the Hon. Carl Schurz, is self-explanatory:\n\n\nBOSTON, December 21, 1898.\n\nMY DEAR MR. SCHURZ:\n\nIn a recent letter you kindly suggest that I submit to you a sketch of\nwhat, I think, should be said in an address such as it is proposed\nshould now be put forth by the Anti-Imperialist League to the people of\nthe United States.\n\nI last evening read a paper before the Lexington Historical Society, in\nwhich I discussed the question of extra-territorial expansion from the\nhistorical point of view. A copy of this paper I hope soon to forward\nyou. Meanwhile, there is one aspect, and, to my mind, the all-important\naspect of the question, which, in addressing an historical society, was\nnot germane. I refer to the question of a practical policy to be pursued\nby us, as a nation, under existing conditions. That Spain has abandoned\nall claim of sovereignty over the Philippine islands admits of no\nquestion. Whether the United States has accepted the sovereignty thus\nabandoned is still an open question; but this I do not regard as\nmaterial. Nevertheless, we are confronted by a fact; and, whenever we\ncriticise the policy up to this time pursued; we are met with an inquiry\nas to what we have to propose in place of it. We are invited to stop\nfinding fault with others, and to suggest some feasible alternative\npolicy ourselves.\n\nTo this we must, therefore, in fairness, address ourselves. It is, in my\njudgment, useless to attempt to carry on the discussion merely in the\nnegative form. As opponents of an inchoate policy we must, in place of\nwhat we object to, propose something positive, or we must abandon the\nfield. Accepting the alternative, I now want to suggest a positive\npolicy for the consideration of those who feel as we feel. I wish your\njudgment upon it.\n\nThere has, it seems to me, been a great deal of idle \"Duty,\" \"Mission,\"\nand \"Call\" talk on the subject of our recent acquisition of \"Islands\nbeyond the Sea,\" and the necessity of adopting some policy, commonly\ndescribed as \"Imperial,\" in dealing with them. This policy is, in the\nminds of most people who favor it, to be indirectly modelled on the\npolicy heretofore so successfully pursued under somewhat similar\nconditions by Great Britain. It involves, as I tried to point out in the\nLexington paper I have referred to, the abandonment or reversal of all\nthe fundamental principles of our government since its origin, and of\nthe foreign policy we have heretofore pursued. This, I submit, is\nabsolutely unnecessary. Another and substitute policy, purely American,\nas contradistinguished from the European or British, known as\n\"Imperial,\" policy, can readily be formulated.\n\nThis essentially American policy would be based both upon our cardinal\npolitical principles, and our recent foreign experiences. It is commonly\nargued that, having destroyed the existing government in Cuba, Porto\nRico, and the Philippines, we have assumed a political responsibility,\nand are under a moral obligation to provide another government in place\nof that which by our action has ceased to exist. What has been our\ncourse heretofore under similar circumstances? Precedents, I submit, at\nonce suggest themselves. Precedents, too, directly in point, and within\nyour and my easy recollection.\n\nI refer to the course pursued by us towards Mexico in the year 1848, and\nagain in 1866; towards Hayti for seventy years back; and towards\nVenezuela as recently as three years ago. It is said that the\ninhabitants of the islands of the Antilles, and much more those of the\nPhilippine archipelago, are as yet unfitted to maintain a government;\nand that they should be kept in a condition of \"tutelage\" until they are\nfitted so to do. It is further argued that a stable government is\nnecessary, and that it is out of the question for us to permit a\ncondition of chronic disturbance and scandalous unrest to exist so near\nour own borders as Cuba and Porto Rico. Yet how long, I would ask, did\nthat condition exist in Mexico? And with what results? How long has it\nexisted in Hayti? Has the government of Venezuela ever been \"stable\"?\nHave we found it necessary or thought it best to establish a\ngovernmental protectorate in any of those immediately adjacent regions?\n\nWhat has been, historically, our policy--the American, as distinguished\nfrom the European and British policy--towards those communities,--two\nof them Spanish, one African? So far as foreign powers are concerned, we\nhave laid down the principle of \"Hands-off.\" So far as their own\ngovernment was concerned, we insisted that the only way to learn to walk\nwas to try to walk, and that the history of mankind did not show that\nnations placed under systems of \"tutelage,\"--taught to lean for support\non a superior power,--ever acquired the faculty of independent action.\n\nOf this, with us, fundamental truth, the British race itself furnishes a\nvery notable example. In the forty-fourth year of the Christian era the\nisland of Great Britain was occupied by what the \"Imperial\" Romans\nadjudged to be an inferior race. To the Romans the Britons\nunquestionably were inferior. Every child's history contains an account\nof the course then pursued by the superior towards that inferior race,\nand its results. The Romans occupied Great Britain, and they occupied it\nhard upon four centuries, holding the people in \"tutelage,\" and\nprotecting them against themselves, as well as against their enemies.\nWith what result? So emasculated and incapable of self-government did\nthe people of England become during their \"tutelage\" that, when Rome at\nlast withdrew, they found themselves totally unfitted for\nself-government, much more for facing a foreign enemy. As the last, and\nbest, historian of the English people tells us, the purely despotic\nsystem of the imperial government \"by crushing all local independence,\ncrushed all local vigor. Men forgot how to fight for their country when\nthey forgot how to govern it.\"[3] The end was that, through six\ncenturies more, England was overrun, first by those of one race, and\nthen by those of another, until the Normans established themselves in it\nas conquerors; and then, and not until then, the deteriorating effect of\na system of long continued \"tutelage\" ceased to be felt, and the\nislanders became by degrees the most energetic, virile, and\nself-sustaining of races. As nearly, therefore, as can be historically\nstated, it took eight centuries for the people of England to overcome\nthe injurious influence of four centuries of just such a system as it is\nnow proposed by us to inflict on the Philippines.[4] Hindostan would\nfurnish another highly suggestive example of the educational effects of\n\"tutelage\" on a race. After a century and a half of that British\n\"tutelage,\" what progress has India made towards fitness for\nself-government? Is the end in sight?\n\nFrom the historical point of view, it is instructive to note the exactly\ndifferent results reached through the truly American policy we have\npursued in the not dissimilar cases of Hayti and Mexico. While Hayti, it\nis true, has failed to make great progress in one century, it has made\nquite as much progress as England made during any equal period\nimmediately after Rome withdrew from it. And that degree of slowness in\ngrowth, which with equanimity has been endured by us in Hayti, could\ncertainly be endured by us in islands on the coast of Asia. It cannot be\ngainsaid that, through our insisting on the policy of non-interference\nourselves, and of non-interference by European nations, Hayti has been\nbrought into a position where it is on the high road to better things in\nfuture. That has been the result of the prescriptive American policy.\nWith Mexico, the case is far stronger. We all know that in 1848, after\nour war of spoliation, we had to bolster up a semblance of a government\nfor Mexico, with which to negotiate a treaty of peace. Mexico at that\ntime was reduced by us to a condition of utter anarchy. Under the theory\nnow gaining in vogue, it would then have been our plain duty to make of\nMexico an extra-territorial dependency, and protect it against itself.\nWe wisely took a different course. Like other Spanish communities in\nAmerica, Mexico than passed through a succession of revolutions, from\nwhich it became apparent the people were not in a fit condition for\nself-government. Nevertheless, sternly insisting on non-interference by\noutside powers, we ourselves wisely left that country to work out its\nown salvation in its own way.\n\nIn 1862, when the United States was involved in the War of the\nRebellion, the Europeans took advantage of the situation to invade\nMexico, and to establish there a \"stable government.\" They undertook to\nprotect that people against themselves, and to erect for them a species\nof protectorate, such as we now propose for the Philippines. As soon as\nour war was over, we insisted upon the withdrawal of Europe from Mexico.\nWhat followed is matter of recent history. It is unnecessary to recall\nit. We did not reduce Mexico into a condition of \"tutelage,\" or\nestablish over it a \"protectorate\" of our own. We, on the contrary,\ninsisted that it should stand on its own legs; and, by so doing, learn\nto stand firmly on them, just as a child learns to walk, by being\ncompelled to try to walk, not by being kept everlastingly in \"leading\nstrings.\" This was the American, as contradistinguished from the\nEuropean policy; and Mexico to-day walks firmly.\n\nFinally take the case of Venezuela in 1895. I believe I am not mistaken\nwhen I say that, during the twenty-five preceding years, Venezuela had\nundergone almost as many revolutions. It certainly had not enjoyed a\nstable government. Through disputes over questions of boundary, Great\nBritain proposed to confer that indisputable blessing upon a\nconsiderable region. We interfered under a most questionable extension\nof the Monroe Doctrine, and asserted the principle of \"Hands-off.\"\nHaving done this,--having in so far perpetuated what we now call the\nscandal of anarchy,--we did not establish \"tutelage,\" or a protectorate,\nourselves. We wisely left Venezuela to work out its destiny in its own\nway, and in the fullness of time. That policy was far-seeing,\nbeneficent, and strictly American in 1895. Why, then, make almost\nindecent haste to abandon it in 1898?\n\nInstead, therefore, of finding our precedents in the experience of\nEngland, or that of any other European power, I would suggest that the\ntrue course for this country now to pursue is exactly the course we have\nheretofore pursued under similar conditions. Let us be true to our own\ntraditions, and follow our own precedents. Having relieved the Spanish\nislands from the dominion of Spain, we should declare concerning them a\npolicy of \"Hands-off,\" both on our own part and on the part of other\npowers. We should say that the independence of those islands is morally\nguaranteed by us as a consequence of the treaty of Paris, and then leave\nthem just as we have left Hayti, and just as we left Mexico and\nVenezuela, to adopt for themselves such form of government as the people\nthereof are ripe for. In the cases of Mexico and Venezuela, and in the\ncase of Hayti, we have not found it necessary to interfere ever or at\nall. It is not yet apparent why we should find it necessary to interfere\nwith islands so much more remote from us than Hayti, and than Mexico and\nVenezuela, as are the Philippines.\n\nIn this matter we can thus well afford to be consistent, as well as\nlogical. Our fundamental principles, those of the Declaration, the\nConstitution, and the Monroe Doctrine, have not yet been shown to be\nunsound--why should we be in such a hurry to abandon them? Our\nprecedents are close at hand, and satisfactory--why look away from them\nto follow those of Great Britain? Why need we, all of a sudden, be so\nvery English and so altogether French, even borrowing their nomenclature\nof \"imperialism?\" Why can not we, too, in the language of Burke, be\ncontent to set our feet \"in the tracks of our forefathers, where we can\nneither wander nor stumble?\" The only difficulty in the way of our so\ndoing seems to be that we are in such a desperate hurry; while natural\ninfluences and methods, though in the great end indisputably the wisest\nand best, always require time in which to work themselves out to their\nresults. Wiser than the Almighty in our own conceit, we think to get\nthere at once; the \"there\" in this case being everlasting \"tutelage,\" as\nin India, instead of ultimate self-government, as in Mexico.\n\nThe policy heretofore pursued by us in such cases,--the policy of\n\"Hands-off,\" and \"Walk alone,\" is distinctly American; it is not\nEuropean, not even British. It recognizes the principles of our\nDeclaration of Independence. It recognizes the truth that all just\ngovernment exists by the consent of the governed. It recognizes the\nexistence of the Monroe Doctrine. In a word, it recognizes every\nprinciple and precedent, whether natural or historical, which has from\nthe beginning lain at the foundation of our American polity. It does not\nattempt the hypocritical contradiction in terms, of pretending to\nelevate a people into a self-sustaining condition through the\nleading-string process of \"tutelage.\" It appeals to our historical\nexperience, applying to present conditions the lessons of Hayti, Mexico,\nand Venezuela. In dealing with those cases, we did not find a great\nstanding army or an enormous navy necessary; and, if not then, why now?\nWhy such a difference between the Philippines and Hayti? Is Cuba larger\nor nearer to us than Mexico? When, therefore, in future they ask us what\ncourse and policy we Anti-Imperialists propose, our answer should be\nthat we propose to pursue towards the islands of Antilles and the\nPhilippines the same common-sense course and truly American policy which\nwere by us heretofore pursued with such signal success in the cases of\nHayti, Mexico, and Venezuela, all inhabited by people equally unfit for\nself-government, and geographically much closer to ourselves. We propose\nto guarantee them against outside meddling, and, above all, from\n\"tutelage,\" and make them, by walking, learn to walk alone.\n\nThis, I submit, is not only an answer to the question so frequently put\nto us, but a positive policy following established precedents, and, what\nis more, purely American, as distinguished from a European or British,\npolicy and precedents.\n\nI remain, etc.,\n\nCHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.\n\n_Hon. Carl Schurz,\n16 E. 64th Street, New York City._\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] \"Obviously, men are not born equal in physical strength or in mental\ncapacity, in beauty of form or health of body. Diversity or inequality\nin these respects is the law of creation. But this inequality is in no\nparticular inconsistent with complete civil or political equality.\n\n\"The equality declared by our fathers in 1776 and made the fundamental\nlaw of Massachusetts in 1780, was _Equality before the Law_. Its object\nwas to efface all political or civil distinctions, and to abolish all\ninstitutions founded upon _birth_. 'All men are _created_ equal,' says\nthe Declaration of Independence. 'All men are _born_ free and equal,'\nsays the Massachusetts Bill of Rights. These are not vain words. Within\nthe sphere of their influence, no person can be _created_, no person can\nbe _born_, with civil or political privileges not enjoyed equally by all\nhis fellow-citizens; nor can any institutions be established,\nrecognizing distinctions of birth. Here is the Great Charter of every\nhuman being drawing vital breath upon this soil, whatever may be his\nconditions, and whoever may be his parents. He may be poor, weak,\nhumble, or black,--he may be of Caucasian, Jewish, Indian, or Ethiopian\nrace,--he may be born of French, German, English, or Irish extraction;\nbut before the Constitution of Massachusetts all these distinctions\ndisappear. He is not poor, weak, humble, or black; nor is he Caucasian,\nJew, Indian, or Ethiopian; nor is he French, German, English, or Irish;\nhe is a MAN, the equal of all his fellow-men. He is one of the children\nof the State, which, like an impartial parent, regards all its offspring\nwith an equal care. To some it may justly allot higher duties, according\nto higher capacities; but it welcomes all to its equal hospitable board.\nThe State, imitating the divine Justice, is no respecter of\npersons.\"--_Works of Charles Sumner, Vol. II., pp. 341-2_.\n\n[2] Historically speaking, the assertion in the Declaration of\nIndependence has been fruitful of dispute. The very evening the present\npaper was read at Lexington the Mayor of Boston, in a public address\nelsewhere, alluded to the \"imprudent generalizations of our\nforefathers,\" referring, doubtless, to what Rufus Choate, forty-two\nyears before, described as \"the glittering and sounding generalities of\nnatural right\" to be found in the Declaration, \"that passionate and\neloquent manifesto.\" Mr. Calhoun declared (1848) that the claim of human\nequality set forth in the Declaration was \"the most false and dangerous\nof all political errors,\" which, after resting a long time \"dormant,\"\nhad, in the process of time, begun \"to germinate and produce its\npoisonous fruits.\" Mr. Pettit, a Senator from Indiana, pronounced it in\n1854, \"a self-evident lie.\" In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debate in\nIllinois (1860) the question reappeared, Mr. Douglas contending that the\nDeclaration applied only to \"the white people of the United States;\"\nwhile Mr. Lincoln, in reply, asserted that \"the entire records of the\nworld, from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to within\nthree years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation,\nfrom one single man, that the negro was not included in the\nDeclaration.\" The contention of Mr. Douglas had recently again made its\nappearance in the press as something too indisputable to admit of\ndiscussion. It is asserted that, in penning the Declaration, Mr.\nJefferson could not possibly have intended to include those then\nactually held as slaves. On this point Mr. Jefferson himself should, it\nwould seem, be accepted as a competent witness. Referring to the denial\nof his \"inalienable rights\" to the African, he declared at a later day,\n\"I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just.\" What he\nmeant will, however, probably continue matter for confident newspaper\nassertions just so long as anybody in this country wants to make out, as\ndid Stephen A. Douglas in 1860, a plausible pretext for subjugating\nsomebody else,--Indian, African, or Asiatic. As Mr. Lincoln expressed\nit, \"The assertion that all men are created equal was of no practical\nuse in effecting our separation from Great Britain, and it was placed in\nthe Declaration, not for that but for future use. Its author meant it to\nbe, as, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to all\nthose who, in after times, might seek to turn a free people back into\nthe paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed\ntyrants, and they meant, when such should reappear in this fair land,\nand commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one\nhard nut to crack.\"--_Works_, Vol. I., p. 233.\n\n[3] Green's Short History (Ill. Ed.). Vol. I. p. 9.\n\n[4] The Roman legions were withdrawn from Great Britain in 410; Magna\nCharta was signed in June, 1215, and the reign of French kings over\nEngland came to a close in 1217. It is a striking illustration of the\ndeliberation with which natural processes work themselves out, that the\nperiod which elapsed between the withdrawal of Rome from England, and\nthe recovery of England by the English, should have exceeded by more\nthan a century the time which has as yet elapsed since England was thus\nrecovered.","title":"\"Imperialism\" and \"The Tracks of Our Forefathers\"","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":13541}