[* This was Colonel Ingersoll's last interview.]
I am an expansionist. The country has the land hunger and expansion
is popular. I want all we can honestly get.
But I do not want the Philippines unless the Filipinos want us,
and I feel exactly the same about the Cubans.
We paid twenty millions of dollars to Spain for the Philippine
Islands, and we knew that Spain had no title to them.
The question with me is not one of trade or convenience; it is a
question of right or wrong. I think the best patriot is the man
who wants his country to do right.
The Philippines would be a very valuable possession to us, in view
of their proximity to China. But, however desirable they may be,
that cuts no figure. We must do right. We must act nobly toward
the Filipinos, whether we get the islands or not.
I would like to see peace between us and the Filipinos; peace
honorable to both; peace based on reason instead of force.
If control had been given to Dewey, if Miles had been sent to
Manila, I do not believe that a shot would have been fired at the
Filipinos, and that they would have welcomed the American flag.
_Question_. Although you are not in favor of taking the Philippines
by force, how do you regard the administration in its conduct of
the war?
_Answer_. They have made many mistakes at Washington, and they
are still making many. If it has been decided to conquer the
Filipinos, then conquer them at once. Let the struggle not be
drawn out and the drops of blood multiplied. The Republican party
is being weakened by inaction at the Capital. If the war is not
ended shortly, the party in power will feel the evil effects at
the presidential election.
_Question_. In what light do you regard the Philippines as an
addition to the territory of the United States?
_Answer_. Probably in the future, and possibly in the near future,
the value of the islands to this country could hardly be calculated.
The division of China which is bound to come, will open a market
of four hundred millions of people. Naturally a possession close
to the open doors of the East would be of an almost incalculable
value to this country.
It might perhaps take a long time to teach the Chinese that they
need our products. But suppose that the Chinese came to look upon
wheat in the same light that other people look upon wheat and its
product, bread? What an immense amount of grain it would take to
feed four hundred million hungry Chinamen!
The same would be the case with the rest of our products. So you
will perhaps agree with me in my view of the immense value of the
islands if they could but be obtained by honorable means.
_Question_. If the Democratic party makes anti-imperialism the
prominent plank in its platform, what effect will it have on the
party's chance for success?
_Answer_. Anti-imperialism, as the Democratic battle-cry, would
greatly weaken a party already very weak. It is the most unpopular
issue of the day. The people want expansion. The country is
infected with patriotic enthusiasm. The party that tries to resist
the tidal wave will be swept away. Anybody who looks can see.
Let a band at any of the summer resorts or at the suburban breathing
spots play a patriotic air. The listeners are electrified, and
they rise and off go their hats when "The Star-Spangled Banner" is
struck up. Imperialism cannot be fought with success.
_Question_. Will the Democratic party have a strong issue in its
anti-trust cry?
_Answer_. In my opinion, both parties will nail anti-trust planks
in their platforms. But this talk is all bosh with both parties.
Neither one is honest in its cry against trusts. The one making
the more noise in this direction may get the votes of some unthinking
persons, but every one who is capable of reading and digesting what
he reads, knows full well that the leaders of neither party are
sincere and honest in their demonstrations against the trusts.
Why should the Democratic party lay claim to any anti-trust glory?
Is it not a Republican administration that is at present investigating
the alleged evils of trusts?
--_The North American_, Philadelphia, June 22, 1899.