IMPERIALISM.
Mr. Bourassa is apparently so frightened by what he calls _Imperialism_
that the horrible phantom being always present to his imagination, he
shudders at it in day time, and wildly dreams of it at night. Judging by
what he has said and written, he seems to have worried a great deal, for
many years past, about the dire misfortunes which, he believed, were
more and more threatening the future of the world by the strong movement
of imperialist views he detected everywhere. It is the great hobby which
saddens his life, the terrible bugbear with which he is ever trying to
arouse the feelings of his French Canadian countrymen against England.
The deceased British statesman, called Joseph Chamberlain, by his
efforts to promote the unity of the Empire, inspired Mr. Bourassa with a
profound fear which he wanted his compatriots to share by all the means
at his command:--public speeches, newspaper editorials, pamphlets. He
charged him with the responsibility of the _infamous crime_ he brought
England to commit in accepting the challenge of President Kruger and the
then South African Republic, and fighting for the defence of her
Sovereign rights in South Africa. According to the Nationalist leader, a
vigorous impulse was given by the South African war to the political
evolution which he termed _British Imperialism_. Nothing was further
from the true meaning of this important event.
In refuting Mr. Bourassa's assertion, I showed that the South African
war was not the outgrowth of Imperialist ideas, and that it has in no
way resulted in a dangerous advance of the kind of Imperialism which so
much frightens him and all those who experience his baneful influence.
As I have previously proved, the South African campaign was imposed upon
England by the then aspiration of a section only of Boer opinion, led by
the unscrupulous and haughty President Kruger, imprudently relying on
the support of the German Kaiser who had hastened to congratulate him
for his success in the Jameson Raid. It resulted not in favor of
Imperialism of the type so violently denounced by Mr. Bourassa, but in a
most beneficent expansion of Political Freedom by the granting of the
free British institutions to the new great South African overseas
Dominion. It is only the other day that ex-Premier Asquith, on the
occasion of a great public function, has declared that Premier Botha,
the former most prominent Boer General, was now one of the strongest
pillars of the British Empire.
It being so important to set the opinion of the French Canadians right
respecting that question of Imperialism, so much discussed of late, and
by many with so little political sense and historical knowledge, I would
not rest satisfied with a refutation of the special Bourassist
appreciation of the causes and results of the South African conflict. I
summarized, in a condensed review, the divers phases of the political
movement which can properly be called _Imperialism_, tracing its origin
as far back as the organization of the first great political Powers
known to History: the Persian, the Egyptian, the Greek Empires, &c. More
than ever before, Imperialism was triumphant during the long Roman
domination of almost all the then known world. Every student of History
is impressed by the grandeur of the part played by the Roman Empire in
the world's drama. Constantine struck the first blow at Roman
Imperialism--unwillingly we can rest assured--in laying the foundations
of Constantinople, and dividing the Roman Empire into the Western and
Eastern Empires. At last, after repeated invasions, the Northern
barbarians succeeded in smashing the Roman Colossus.
After many long years during which European political society passed
through the incessant turmoil of rival ambitions, Charlemagne sets up
anew the Western Empire, being coronated Emperor in Rome. Ever since,
amidst multiplied ups and downs, Imperialism has swayed to and fro by
the successive edification and overthrow of the Holy Roman Empire, the
short lived Napoleonic European domination, the recently organized
North German Empire.
So far as Imperialism is concerned, all those great historical facts
considered, how best can it be defined? Is it not evident that from the
very birth of political societies for the government of Mankind, a
double current of political thoughts and aspirations has been
concurrently at work, with alternate successes and retrocessions: one
tending towards large political organizations, uniting a variety of
ethnical groups; the other operating the reverse way to bring about
their dissolution in favour of multiplied small sovereignties. Each of
the two opposing political systems has had its ebb and flow tides; the
waves of the one, in their flowing days, washing the shores of the other
until they had to recede before the pressure caused by the exhaustion of
their own strength and the increased resistance of internal opposition.
Viewed from this elevated standpoint, Imperialism is not new under the
sun. It is as ancient as the world itself. Mr. Bourassa has been
uselessly spending his energy in breaking his head against a movement
which is in the very nature of things, developing the same way under the
same favourable conditions and circumstances.
Are the days we live so fraught with the dangers of Imperialism as to
justify the fears of the alarmist? The answer would be in the
affirmative, the question being considered from the point of view of
Germany's autocratic Imperialism, if the free nations of the world had
not joined in a holy union to put an end to its extravagant and
tyrannical ambition. But how is it that Mr. Bourassa, the heaven-born
anti-imperialist, so frightened at the supposed progress of British
Imperialism, is so lenient towards Teutonic Imperialism? How is it that
from the very first days of the gigantic struggle calling for the most
heroic efforts of the human race to emerge safe and free from the
furious waves powerfully set in motion by the most daring absolutism
that ever existed, he has not thought proper to chastise as it deserved
the worst kind of Imperialism that he could, or any one else, imagine?
Taking for granted that the present economical conditions of the
universe, likely to intensify, are working for great political
organisations, from the causes previously explained, any intelligent
observer could not fail to see that for the last century four great
imperialist evolutions have been concurrently--or rather
simultaneously--developing themselves; they were the British, the
Teutonic, the Russian, the Republican in the United States. Let no one
be astonished at seeing the two words _Imperialism_ and _Republicanism_
coupled together. In their true sense, they are easily conciliated.
The Roman Republic, by the grandeur of its part, was Imperialist as much
as the Empire to which she gave birth. Caesar, without the imperial crown
was Emperor as much as August. He was more so by his genius, and by the
eminent position he had acquired by one of the most brilliant careers in
History.
Bonaparte, General and First Consul, in the closing days of the first
French Republic, was Emperor as much as he became on the day of his
Coronation, at Paris, by the Sovereign Pontiff.
Imperialism being a great historical fact through all the ages, and most
certainly destined to further developments, is it to be judged
favourably or alarmingly?
No doubt the problem is of the greatest possible political importance.
The question can, I consider, be at the outset simplified as
follows:--Would the prosperity, the freedom, the happiness of the world
be better served by great political Powers, or by the multiplication of
small sovereignties? It is just as well, and even better, to admit at
once that a unique, a dogmatic, answer cannot be given to that question.
Independent nations, sovereign societies, are not created at will by
men, merely according to their fancy, to their variable and very often
undefined wishes. History teaches that they are the outgrowth of various
circumstances, of many divergent causes,--the most important, the one
inscrutable, being always the action of Divine Providence directing the
destinies of peoples as well as those of every human being. Different
causes produce, of course, different results. Large and small political
communities can surely be productive of much good for their
populations. Much depends upon the intelligence, the wisdom, the
devotion, the patriotism of the rulers and the governed. They can also
do much harm. Unfortunately, the readers of past events have too much
reason to deplore that both large and small political organizations have
been equally guilty of maladministration, of ambitious cupidity of their
neighbours' possessions, of unjust wars. As an uncontrovertible example,
can I not point to the present German Empire, whose origin dates back to
the days of the very small Prussia of two centuries ago, fighting her
way up to her actual greatness by successive, unfair, and often criminal
aggressions.
After reading much of the history of past ages, I have not been able to
come to the conclusion--and the more I read, the less inclined I am to
do so--that the days when England, France, Central Europe, Italy, &c.,
were subdivided into numerous small political organizations, almost
always warring, were preferable to ours, even darkened and saddened as
they are by the present trials and sufferings.
If, on the other hand, the causes which at all times have tended to the
creation of large political sovereignties are gradually acquiring an
increased momentum of strength and activity, from the changed conditions
brought about by the great scientific discoveries so wonderfully
developing the commercial relations of the nations, is it not more
advisable to study the true nature of the evolution and the good it can
produce, rather than to shiver at the supposed prospects of an
Imperialist cataclysm so certainly to be averted if public opinion is
sound and Rulers wise. Crying on the shores of the St. Lawrence, against
the advance of the rolling waves, would not prevent the tide from
running up. The mad man who would try it, and persist in remaining on
the spot, displaying his indignant and extravagant protest, would surely
be submerged and drowned.
Political developments, like many others, obey natural laws which no
true statesman can ignore nor overlook. Because the limits of a
political organization are extended, does it necessarily follow that
only deplorable consequences can be expected from their enlargement?
Surely not. One might as well pretend that unity, cohesion, strength,
grandeur, are only productive of baneful results. Is it not a certainty
that they can be equally beneficial or harmful, according to the
intellectual and moral qualities of those who are called upon to apply
them to the best interests of those they govern.
German Imperialism, for instance, was not _per se_ a public misfortune.
It became such because instead of using its instrumentality for the
general good of the world as well as that of Germany, it was applied to
a barbarous and criminal purpose to satisfy unjust and senseless
aspirations.
In the same years, all the resources of British Imperialism,--so
abhorrent to Mr. Bourassa and his Nationalist adepts who view with such
meekness the Teutonic type--have been brought into play for the freedom
of the world and the protection of the small nationalities--notably
Belgium.
Bulgaria was a small State. Was it on this account less ambitious and
troublesome for its neighbours? Any one conversant with the recent
Balkan history knows that Bulgaria has from the start aspired to
dominate the Balkan States. When the Berlin Government struck the hour
which was to throw not only Europe, but three-fourths of the universe
into the worst horrors of war, has Bulgaria rallied to the defence of
her weak neighbour, Servia? Has she proved any sympathy for
treacherously crushed Belgium?
I emphatically declare that I would oppose Imperialism with all my
might, if I thought that it is by nature a necessary producer of
absolutism, of autocratic tyranny. But, the British precedent considered
through all its beneficial developments, I must recognize that true
Imperialism is not incompatible with the just and wise exercise of
political liberty, with respectful protection of the rights and
conditions of the divers national elements under its aegis.
I pray to remain to my last day a faithful friend of the political
liberties of the people. Knowing, as I do, how hard it is to apply them
to the government of nations--great or small--I am not bewildered by
vain illusions. But I cannot conceive--and never will--that the justice
of the real principles of Political Liberty is to be denied on account
of the difficulties of their satisfactory working, certainly obtainable
when applied in conformity with the dictates of moral laws owing all
their power to their Divine origin.
The best political institutions which can work out such great advantages
for the populations enjoying them, are too often diverted from their
beneficient course by the vicious passions of those who are charged
with, and responsible for, their administration. It would be most
illogical to draw the inference that good institutions become bad by
their guilty management.
Free and autocratic governments are essentially different in their
natural structure. Though liable to mismanagement by unscrupulous
politicians, free institutions can, under ordinary favourable
conditions, be trusted to be productive of much good for the peoples
living under their protection. Autocracy--the whole human history proves
it--by nature engenders absolutism. Crowned or revolutionary despots as
a rule are not imbued with the patriotism nor purified by the virtues
required for the good government of a country. Kaiserism, Terrorism and
Bolshevikism are equally despicable and unfit to contribute to the sound
progress which liberty, practiced by sensible and wise men, can develop.
Reverting to the Nationalist bugbear, which does not in the least move
me to despair of Canada's future, I consider that Imperialism, sensibly
appreciated, is of two kinds: Autocratic Imperialism; Democratic
Imperialism:--Absolutism is the foundation stone of the former;
Political Liberty that of the latter. I am energetically opposed to the
first. I sincerely believe that the second can do a great deal for the
prosperity of the countries where it has regularly and justifiably been
developed according to the natural laws of its growth.
Autocratic Imperialism, in contemporaneous history, is almost
exclusively typified by its Teutonic production. A general review of the
world shows that for the last century, and more, with one sad exception,
all the nations have been moving along the path leading to a greater
freedom of their institutions. Even Japan and China have joined in the
race. Russia had deliberately done so. Much was expected from her first
efforts, and much would certainly have been reaped in due course had not
the calamitous war still raging at first opened an opportunity for the
reactionary Russian element, strongly influenced by German intrigues,
spies and money, to check, through the Petrograd Court, the forward
movement of Russian political liberty, and to impede, for Germany's
sake, the success of the Russian military operations. Under those
circumstances--as was also to be expected--the advancing wave of the
aspirations of the great Russian people for more political freedom, was
bound either to recede before the autocratic outburst, or to rush
impetuously against the wall Germany was to her best helping to raise
against it. The latter prevision happened, history once more repeating
itself.
Even barbarous Turkey, in recent years, had been somewhat shaken by a
sudden desire to remove some of her secular shackles. The young Turks
movement might have had some desirable results had the Ottoman Empire,
as every national and political considerations should have induced her
to do, sided with France and England.
Germany is actually the only country in the world where Autocratic
Imperialism has been flourishing during the last century. We all know
the extent and the grievousness of the calamity it has wrought on the
universe.
During the same last century, Democratic Imperialism--using the term in
its broadest and most reasonable meaning--has had two distinct
beneficial developments:--the Monarchical Democratic Imperialism, and
the Republican Democratic Imperialism.
The Monarchical Democratic or free Imperialism--it is scarcely necessary
for me to say--is that of Great Britain.
The Republican Democratic or free Imperialism is that of the United
States of America, of the Argentine Republic, of Brazil.
Happily the two great and glorious countries which are favoured with the
advantages of the Democratic type of Imperialism are united in a grand
and noble effort to destroy the German Autocratic Imperialism in
chastisement of its criminal aspirations to universal domination.
The two types of Democratic or free Imperialism--the Monarchical and the
Republican--can be better illustrated by a comparative short historical
study of their development in Great Britain and her colonies, and in the
United States. I summarize it as follows, beginning by the last
mentioned, as it requires a shorter exposition.