issue which they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics.
When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the
House and Senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of
aiding the struggling patriots of Cuba, the country, without regard to
party, applauded. Although the Democrats recognized that the
administration would necessarily gain a political advantage from the
conduct of a war which in the very nature of the case must soon end in a
complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which
they gave to the President. When the war was over and the Republican
leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy, opposition
at once manifested itself. When the President finally laid before the
Senate a treaty which recognized the independence of Cuba, but provided
for the cession of the Philippine islands to the United States, the
menace of imperialism became so apparent that many preferred to reject
the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take the
chance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action
of this country.
I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the
treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for
war expenditures, and then give to the Filipinos the independence which
might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.
In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I
take this occasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought
it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the
Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy
with an unfriendly nation. Lincoln embodied an argument in the question
when he asked, “Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make
laws?” I believe that we are now in a better position to wage a
successful contest against imperialism than we would have been had the
treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified, a clean-cut issue is
presented between a government by consent and a government by force, and
imperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the
question is settled. If the treaty had been rejected, the opponents of
imperialism would have been held responsible for any international
complications which might have arisen before the ratification of another
treaty. But, whatever differences of opinion may have existed as to the
best method of opposing a colonial policy, there never was any
difference as to the importance of the course to be pursued.
The title of Spain being extinguished, we were at liberty to deal with
the Filipinos according to American principles. The Bacon resolution,
introduced a month before hostilities broke out at Manila, promised
independence to the Filipinos on the same terms that it was promised to
the Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption
prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented bloodshed,
and that its adoption at any subsequent time would have ended
hostilities.
If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily
elapsed before a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified,
and during that time the question would have been agitating the public
mind. If the Bacon resolution had been adopted by the Senate and carried
out by the President, either at the time of the ratification of the
treaty or at any time afterwards, it would have taken the question of
imperialism out of politics and left the American people free to deal
with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeated by the
vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this a
Republican Congress has refused to take any action whatever in the
matter.
When hostilities broke out at Manila Republican speakers and Republican
editors at once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the
ratification of the treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the
same Republicans have accused the opponents of imperialism of giving
encouragement to the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion of
responsibility.
If it is right for the United States to hold the Philippine islands
permanently and imitate European empires in the government of colonies,
the Republican party ought to state its position and defend it, but it
must expect the subject races to protest against such a policy and to
resist to the extent of their ability. The Filipinos do not need any
encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an
encouragement, not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a
voice in their own government. If the Republicans are prepared to
censure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate
foreign domination let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When he
uttered that passionate appeal, “Give me liberty or give me death,” he
expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men. Let them
censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words
so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage.
Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choose
between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run
against the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure
Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense of popular
government when the present advocates of force and conquest are
forgotten.
Some one has said that a truth once spoken can never be recalled. It
goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening
influence. But if it were possible to obliterate every word written or
spoken in defense of the principles set forth in the Declaration of
Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy of
perpetual hatred, for it was God Himself who placed in every human heart
the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale
of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.
Those who would have this nation enter upon a career of empire must
consider not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they
must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We can not
repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without
weakening that principle here.
Lincoln said that the safety of this nation was not in its fleets, its
armies, its forts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the
heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere, and he warned his
countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the
seeds of despotism at their own doors.
Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence of
imperialism. Heretofore, this nation has been prompt to express its
sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our
sphere of activity has been limited to the western hemisphere, our
sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. We have felt it due to
ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for
the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which our
people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every
contest between human rights and arbitrary power. Three-quarters of a
century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles of Greece aroused
our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression to the
universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896, all parties
manifested a lively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when
a war is in progress in South Africa, which must result in the extension
of the monarchial idea, or in the triumph of a republic, the advocates
of imperialism in this country dare not say a word in behalf of the
Boers. Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness
towards England; the American people are not unfriendly toward the
people of any nation. This sympathy is due to the fact that, as stated
in our platform, we believe in the principles of self-government, and
reject, as did our forefathers, the claims of monarchy. If this nation
surrenders its belief in the universal application of the principles set
forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestige and
influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of
popular government.
Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse
imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a
supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language
with such precision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one
occasion he declared: “If there be one principle more deeply rooted than
any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have
nothing to do with conquest.” And again he said: “Conquest is not in our
principles; it is inconsistent with our government.”
The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power
differs as much from the acquisition of territory to be built up into
states as a monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does
not oppose expansion, when expansion enlarges the area of the Republic
and incorporates land which can be settled by American citizens, or adds
to our population people who are willing to become citizens and are
capable of discharging their duties as such. The acquisition of the
Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas, and other tracts which have been
secured from time to time enlarged the Republic, and the Constitution
followed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize
upon distant territory, already more densely populated than our own
country, and to force upon the people a government for which there is no
warrant in our Constitution or our laws. Even the argument that this
earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it and who have the
physical power to acquire it can not be invoked to justify the
appropriation of the Philippine islands by the United States. If the
islands were uninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go
there and till the soil. The white race will not live so near the
equator. Other nations have tried to colonize in the same latitude. The
Netherlands have controlled Java for 300 years, and yet to-day there are
less than 60,000 people of European birth scattered among the 25,000,000
natives. After a century and a half of English domination in India, less
than one-twentieth of one per cent of the people of India are of English
birth, and it requires an army of 70,000 British soldiers to take care
of the tax collectors. Spain had asserted title to the Philippine
islands for three centuries and yet, when our fleet entered Manila bay,
there were less than 10,000 Spaniards residing in the Philippines.
A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine islands a
few traders, a few taskmasters, and a few office holders, and an army
large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the people
while they rule the natives.
If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its
natural and necessary complement. The spirit which will justify the
forcible annexation of the Philippine islands will justify the seizure
of other islands and the domination of other people, and with wars of
conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid, growth of our military
establishment. That a large permanent increase in our regular army is
intended by Republican leaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a
matter of fact. In his message of December 5, 1898, the President asked
for authority to increase the standing army to 100,000. In 1896 the army
contained about 25,000. Within two years the President asked for four
times that many, and a Republican House of Representatives complied with
the request after the Spanish treaty had been signed, and when no
country was at war with the United States. If such an army is demanded
when an imperial policy is contemplated, but not openly avowed, what may
be expected if the people encourage the Republican party by endorsing
its policy at the polls? A large standing army is not only a pecuniary
burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a
constant source of irritation, but it is ever a menace to a Republican
form of government. The army is the personification of force, and
militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the
thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war.
The government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more
likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of
professional soldiers. A small standing army and a well equipped and
well disciplined state militia are sufficient at ordinary times, and in
an emergency the nation should, in the future as in the past, place its
dependence upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their
country’s call and return to productive labor when their services are no
longer required—men who fight when the country needs fighters and work
when the country needs workers.
The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine islands will be
retained under American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of
the Republican leaders a discussion of the future status of the
Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the
body politic eight or ten million Asiatics, so different from us in race
and history that amalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us
in making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No Republican
of prominence has been bold enough to advocate such a proposition. The
McEnery resolution, adopted by the Senate immediately after the
ratification of the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The
Democratic platform describes the situation when it says that the
Filipinos can not be citizens without endangering our civilization. Who
will dispute it? And what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to
be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the
Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the
Filipino can not be a subject without endangering our form of
government. A republic can have no subjects. A subject is possible only
in a government resting upon force; he is unknown in a government
deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Republican platform says that “the largest measure of
self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be
secured to them [the Filipinos] by law.” This is a strange doctrine for
a government which owes its very existence to the men who offered their
lives as a protest against government without consent and taxation
without representation. In what respect does the position of the
Republican party differ from the position taken by the English
government in 1776? Did not the English government promise a good
government to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to
his people? Did not the English government promise that the colonists
should have the largest measure of self-government consistent with their
welfare and English duties? Did not the Spanish government promise to
give to the Cubans the largest measure of self-government consistent
with their welfare and Spanish duties? The whole difference between a
monarchy and a republic may be summed up in one sentence. In a monarchy,
the king gives to the people what he believes to be a good government;
in a republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to be a
good government. The Republican party has accepted the European idea and
planted itself upon the ground taken by George III., and by every ruler
who distrusts the capacity of the people for self-government or denies
them a voice in their own affairs.
The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is
to be given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled.
Nearly sixteen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty
before the adjournment of Congress last June, and yet no law was passed
dealing with the Philippine situation. The will of the President has
been the only law in the Philippine Islands wherever the American
authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate
upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclose the radical
departure from history and precedent contemplated by those who control
the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the Porto Rican
bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American people
are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject. If the
Porto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied the guarantees
of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who
resisted our authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of
our plain duty toward friendly people, living near our shores, what
treatment will those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000
miles away? If, in this country where the people have the right to vote,
Republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the
great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can
they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporations which are
waiting to exploit the islands?
Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the
United States, and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the
people of Porto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage
covers the Philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine
that the operation of the Constitution is confined to the forty-five
states. The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as
repugnant to both the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no
place in our system of government for the deposit of arbitrary and
irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great party should claim for
any president or congress the right to treat millions of people as mere
“possessions” and deal with them unrestrained by the Constitution or the
bill of rights shows how far we have already departed from the ancient
land marks, and indicates what may be expected if this nation
deliberately enters upon a career of empire. The territorial form of
government is temporary and preparatory, and the chief security a
citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same
constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the
citizen of a state. Take away this security and his rights will be
violated and his interests sacrificed at the demand of those who have
political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter
by what nation it is applied.
What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty
or by conquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the
people? If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in
with the land? Will the Republicans say that inanimate earth has value,
but that when that earth is molded by the Divine hand and stamped with
the likeness of the Creator it becomes a fixture and passes with the
soil? If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed, it is impossible to secure title to people, either by force or
by purchase. We could extinguish Spain’s title by treaty, but if we hold
title we must hold it by some method consistent with our ideas of
government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them to fight
against Spain, we disputed Spain’s title. If we buy Spain’s title we are
not innocent purchasers. But even if we had not disputed Spain’s title,
she could transfer no greater title than she had, and her title was
based on force alone. We can not defend such a title, but as Spain gave
us a quit-claim deed, we can honorably turn the property over to the
party in possession. Whether any American official gave to the Filipinos
formal assurance of independence is not material. There can be no doubt
that we accepted and utilized the services of the Filipinos, and that
when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their
own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example of
turpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish
yoke.
Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of
an imperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the
Philippine Islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To
ascertain what our duty is in any emergency, we must apply well settled
and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no
matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is
our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where the human being
lives or to what race or class he belongs. Everyone recognizes the
obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both the human and moral
law, but as some deny the application of those laws to nations, it may
not be out of place to quote the opinions of others.
Jefferson, than whom there is no higher political authority, said:
“I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or
collectively.”
Franklin, whose learning, wisdom, and virtue are a part of the priceless
legacy bequeathed to us from the Revolutionary days, expressed the same
idea in even stronger language when he said:
“Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor
citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as
when single; and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great
gang.”
Men may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as
individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined by the
number of those who join it. Force can defend a right, but force has
never yet created a right. If it were true, as declared in the
resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans “are and of right ought to
be free and independent” (language taken from the Declaration of
Independence), it is equally true that the Filipinos “are and of right
ought to be free and independent.” The right of the Cubans to freedom
was not based upon their proximity to the United States, nor upon the
language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race or races to which they
belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous vote declared that the
principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still alive and
applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural
rights of the Cuban and the Filipino? Who will say that the former has a
right to liberty and the latter has no rights which we are bound to
respect? And, if the Filipinos “are and of right ought to be free and
independent,” what right have we to force our government upon them
without their consent? Before our duty can be ascertained, their rights
must be determined, and when their rights are once determined, it is as
much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty of Spain to
respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England to
respect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict;
duties never clash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which
belong to others? Can it be our duty to kill those who, following the
example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it?
Some poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the
midst of battle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written
“All ye are brethren.” Let us hope for the coming of the day when human
life—which when once destroyed can not be restored—will be so sacred
that it will never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime
already committed, or to prevent a crime about to be committed!
If it is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which
make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the
Philippine Islands, I reply, first, that the highest obligation of this
nation is to be true to itself. No obligation to any particular nation,
or to all the nations combined, can require the abandonment of our
theory of government and the substitution of doctrines against which our
whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that our obligation
to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any
obligation which we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence
in the Philippines or desire to trade there.
It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government
and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them.
Admiral Dewey, in an official report to the navy department, declared
the Filipinos more capable of self-government than the Cubans and said
that he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. But I will not
rest the case upon the relative advancement of the Filipinos. Henry
Clay, in defending the right of the people of South America to
self-government, said: