|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
|
Bryan or McKinley? The Present Duty of American Citizens.
V. The Anti-Imperialist Position.
by North American Review, The
|
If it were not that an attitude of something like intolerance
has found expression to an ominous extent among Administration
partisans concerning the Anti-Imperialist movement, it would
seem that the existence of an active agitation in the United States
of a great public question needed no apology. De Tocqueville has
only expanded the aphorism that vigilance is the price of liberty
in Democracy in America, and every student of our institutions
has recognized the fact that independent and vigorous criticism
is not merely permissible, but that it is the only safeguard of onr
liberties. Governor Roosevelt asserts, in his "Life of Benton,"
that the most dangerous element in the community is not what is
called the criminal class, but a non-combatant class like the
Quakers. The assertion is a characteristically vicious one; but
the Rough Rider would be justified in the contention that, in civil
affairs, the complacent and inactive citizen comes pretty near
being a criminal. Nevertheless, one of the most eminent and
honored citizens of a city famous for public spirit and patriotism
and it is to be feared representative of it in this as in other
matters - has contented himself in the crisis of 1898-1900 with a
passive attitude of acquiescence in the course of the Administration,
"because the President mnst know more about public matters
than the people, and the President can be trusted." Were such a
precept generally followed, the fate of the Republic would be
justly sealed, and its citizenship would be forfeited by
demonstrated unworthiness.
Whatever the result of the Anti-Imperialist cause, it will be
set down in history that a generous, philanthropic and loyal
movement grew up in the United States, which, in spite of bitter
obloquy, artful appeals to selfishness and to every vulgar and
glittering motive, and in spite of opposition by all the unscrupulous
influences of a party supported by an enormous money power, has
stirred the whole country and dictated the policy of a great
national organization.
The momentous character of the imperial aggression
transcends the issues of the Civil War, or those of any imaginable
question that could be presented to a Republic. Its aim is more
deadly than to rend the Republic in twain. We believe that it is
to sap the sources of its life and to sow the seeds of its destruction.
Its most bigoted adherent cannot minimize the fact that the
addition of tropical and unassimilable peoples, in permanent colonial
relations, to our Republic is the most tremendous departure
conceivable from our traditions and principles and practice. No
mere phrases ringing changes upon "expansion," "world power"
and "destiny," can disguise the right and duty of each citizen to
ponder, and decide for himself, propositions so serious and so
pregnant that the attempt which has been made to forestall his
judgment concerning them is in itself the grossest act of
Imperialism.
The few words which follow are to treat of the historical, the
legal or constitutional, the commercial-financial and the ethical
aspects of the paramount question, the wrong side of which is
represented by William McKinley, and the right by William Jennings
Bryan.
The history of the Imperialistic movement is perfectly
authenticated by official reports, by contemporaneous testimony
given by those who have afterwards tried to recede from
compromising positions under obvious influences, and by the evidence of
civilians, officials, travellers and newspaper correspondents,
sometimes by the news telegraphed and written and sometimes by the
significant absence of news when the censor interposed to prevent
its dispatch. Unfortunately, there are many self-contradictions
in written and spoken words by persons in high places. It would
ill become a writer in these pages to accuse the President or his
commanding generals or civil subordinates of falsehood. That
the contradictory statements automatically accuse their authors is
a circumstance beyond his control. The publications of the Anti-
Imperialist League, which can be consulted by any person who
desires to know the truth, have established a series of facts which
will be authentic material for the future historian of the United
States, whatever contemporaneous treatment they may receive.
- The secret correspondence of the Government, at an
early period of the war with Spain, indicated its interest in the
Philippine Islands as a possession.
- The dealings with Aguinaldo, as the leader of the
military forces of the Filipinos, by Consul Wildman, Consul Pratt,
Admiral Dewey, General Anderson and other officers and
representatives of the United States, were, until the capture of Manila
was effected by the co-operation of the native troops, allowed to
go on, with the distinct knowledge by these officials and
representatives that Aguinaldo and his people believed, and had reason to
believe, that their independence was to be the result of the joint
campaign, in case of its success.* [*I never treated them as allies,
except to make use of them - Dewey.]
- The Philippine Government at Malolos, under an excellent
constitution, was set up on September 15th, 1898, with a
Congress of the chosen representatives of the Tagalog and Yisayan
races, embracing a large majority of the civilized tribes of the
whole archipelago* [*Report of Senator Lodge, Chairman of the Committee on the Philip-
pines, Fifty-Sixth Congress, first session, Senate document 171.
] with the tacit consent of the functionaries of
the United States then present in the Philippines.
- A change of attitude toward the native people, their
rulers and their military officers abruptly took place, in
compliance with inspiration from Washington; the native launches
which had been saluted by our officers when flying the Filipino
flag were seized; and our lines about Manila were pressed
forward, in spite of the stipulation in the protocol with Spain that
the status quo should be sacredly respected.
- The Filipinos were denied admittance to the sessions of
the Peace Commission at Paris; and, though the President had at
first let it be known that he intended only to ask for an island or a
coaling station, he changed his instructions and caused his
representatives to demand the whole archipelago, inserting the clause
of the $20,000,000 payment to Spain, to avoid the complications
which might arise from the fact that we had made no conquest
beyond Manila.
- The opponents of the treaty in the Senate were so
numerous that, though challenged to do so, the Administration did
not venture to submit its ratification to a vote. The writers
presence in the Senate and in the Marble Room during these
critical sessions,laboring for the rejection of the treaty, - gives him
the opportunity to offer personal testimony to the progress of
events. On the night of Friday, February 3d, 1899, the
Administration leaders came to the leaders of the Opposition, and virtually
confessed themselves beaten by asking what form of joint
resolution, declaratory of the intention of the United States to grant the
Filipinos independence, would be satisfactory to them. Whatever
influences might have been exerted upon Senators, a sufficient vote
to defeat the ratification of the treaty seemed assured, unless such
a concession were made. The White House, however, did not back
up its representatives in the compromise which they had proposed.
It had still another card to play. Though Senator Wellington
told the writer that, if the President would allow his private
assurances of his intentions to give independence to the Filipinos
to be made public, the treaty could be easily ratified, Mr.
McKinley still declined to allow any such pledge to be made. Why?
- While the treaty was before the Senate, the President
had issued a proclamation on December 21st, 1898, ordering the
immediate extension of the sovereignty of the United States and
its military government to the whole of the ceded territory.*
[*Report of General E. S. Otis, Aug. 31st, 1899.]
This proclamation, General Otis declared, was certain to incite
widespread hostilities, and he actually endeavored to suppress it
and supersede it by a conciliatory address of an entirely different
character. As a commentary on these transactions, the words of
President McKinley at Pittsburg, August 28th, 1899, may be
quoted: "Until the treaty was ratified we had no authority be-
yond Manila city, bay and harbor. We then had no other title to
defend, no authority beyond that to maintain."
- Though the original proclamation was
promulgated through the misunderstanding of an inferior officer, and
though an intense feeling of suspicion was aroused, while our
soldiers indicated by their aggravating conduct that they were still
spoiling for a fight and still pressed back the Filipino lines,to
the everlasting credit of Aguinaldo and his army, no serious
outbreak had yet occurred.
- The immediate cause of the ratification of the treaty
was furnished by the attack on the Filipino lines, February 4th,
1899*,[*Firing upon the Filipinos and the killing of one of them by the
Americans, leading to return fire.Maj.-Gen. F. S. Otis. Report up to
April 6, 1899.] when the principal officers of the Filipino forces were
absent, and the American lines sprang into action with ready
equipment and instant celerity. The affair was reported to the United
States Senate as an attack upon the United States forces by the
Filipinos, and thus, at last, the votes needed for the ratification
of the treaty were obtained.
- The immediate request by the Filipino leader for an
armistice and a neutral zone was refused by the United States
commander*,[*Feb. 9, 1899. Aguinaldo now applies for a cessation of hostilities
and conference; have declined to answer.Maj.-Gen. F. S. Otiss report.
This statement, confirmed by General C. McReeve, has recently been de-
nied by General Otis, who says his own dispatch was misleading!]
and ever since a war has been prosecuted by the
Administration, with no quarter and no hope of quarter unless
through the absolute submission of a nation, once our allies
against a common foe, and fighting for a liberty which we had
virtually promised them, with a courage and persistence which makes
them worthy of it, if any people ever were*.[*I do not think so meanly
of the most unscrupulous advocate of a
policy of aggression and subjugation as to doubt that, if the case were
reversed, and we or he were In the place of Aguinaldo and the inhabitants
of the Philippine Islands, he would resist to the last extremity and would
counsel his countrymen to resist to the last extremity. But we are yet to
learn of what temper these islanders are made; whether their powers of
endurance are equal to their courage and their love of liberty. Letter
from the Hon. Geo. F. Hoar, March 29, 1899.]
The Constitutional aspect of the imperial aggression has been
discussed by many writers and speakers according to their points
of view. It seems hardly necessary to controvert the
extreme assertions which have been made, that the
sanction of a treaty with a foreign nation can supersede
the sanctions of a Constitution. The right of the
Congress to dispose of territory, which has been availed of in similar
cases, obviously makes it possible to transfer such sovereignty as
has been acquired in the Philippine Islands to their inhabitants.
The authority to retain them as territory and to govern them
permanently outside of the Constitution, will doubtless be sought
from the Supreme Court, as the recognition of an existing political
fact. Hitherto, the march of the Constitution, as the progress
of the interpretations of that instrument has been called where
doubts existed, has been enlightened by the principles of the
Declaration of Independence. John Marshall, who has been justly
characterized as the guide, the light and the defender of the
Constitution, won his imperishable fame by the diligence with which
he sought the attainment of those objects for which it is declared
to have been instituted. While Marshall might not have adopted
the strict construction in the Dred Scott case maintained by
Judge Taney and his associates, because it involved the extension
of human slavery contrary to the spirit of the instrument and of
the Declaration of Independence, it can hardly be doubted that
now, since this construction involves, under the changed
conditions, the extension of liberty, Marshall would have to-day
maintained that very construction. The survivors of those who then
opposed it may now support that construction with absolute
consistency. If the Supreme Court is still inspired by the spirit of
its great leaders, its illumination, from the Declaration of
Independence and the traditions of the Government, will enlighten its
counsels so that the contentions of the present Administration will
be defeated, and those arrogated powers which have been exerted
with such fatal results will be overthrown. Then Porto Rico
must have statehood or it must be alienated, and the Philippines
must have statehood or they must be alienated.
It is a part of the Constitutional or legal aspect of the matter,
that no embarrassment need be feared from possible
complications involved in such a protectorate as has been suggested for the
Philippines, or which might be implied by an enfranchised Porto
Rico. Who can doubt that the nations of the world would accept,
at the suggestion of the United States, the neutralization of these
countries, as in the case of Belgium and Switzerland?
Finally, it should be noted that the Administration has never
even suggested the obvious and legal method by way of
amendment to the Constitution for so vast an extension of the powers
of the Government, but that it has endeavored to foist upon the
people a party measure, which transcends in importance any
change of which its authors could have dreamed.
There are several aspects in which the commercial or financial
results of tropical colonial expansion may be regarded, all equally
fatal to the specious arguments which have been exploited by the
friends of the Administration.
- The consideration of the balance between the cost of
subjugation, now called policing vassal states, and any possible
profit therefrom, is one of the most interesting of these. The
expenses incurred on account of the Philippines are at the rate of
about $200,000,000 per annum. There is no immediate prospect
of any considerable reduction in this pretty little bill. The total
sum of the exports and imports of the archipelago has not
exceeded $30,000,000 a year. Let the Imperialist indicate any
possible source of increase in the consuming or producing power of
the islands which can overcome the frightful debit.
- It is impossible to believe, after the uprising against the
scuttle policy of the Administration in the matter of the Porto
Rican tariff, that the tyrannical policy could be maintained of
imposing duties to prevent colonial productions from competing
with our own industries. Thus the sugar growing of tropical
dependencies, promoted by our own capital, will ruin the sugar
industry of the United States. The tobacco trade will, by similar
means, be largely transferred to these favorable regions. Labor
will be brought to the level of the standard of Asiatic living.
For, even though sovereignty did not imply freedom of movement
on the part of the subject peoples, the indentured labor system, a
form of slavery, which English emissaries are endeavoring to in-
duce the United States to graft upon our colonial system after
the example of Great Britain, would probably sooner or later be
adopted by the Imperialists.
- The ultimate result of the extension of our Eastern
policy to China is easily foreseen. A development of commercial
opportunity in that densely popnlated country, to which we are
pointed with such enthusiasm, means what? Not a market but a
menace - the opportunity to export some tools and machinery to
create Chinese industries which may soon supply the markets of
the world. As Richtofen says: The slumbering factors of an
immense industrial production all exist here. There are already
five large cotton mills in Shanghai. Wages average about ten
cents a day, and the ready adaptiveness of the labor is indicated
by the fact that productive capacity has increased twenty-five
percent in one year. Not prosperity but ruin and disaster are the
auguries of expansion.
The ethical side of a condition which has followed avoidable
war need only, it might be supposed, be calmly contemplated to
arouse the conscience of the whole nation in vehement opposition.
In Cuba, a population on the verge of revolution; a broken and
bitter subject race in Porto Rico; in the Philippines, a defiant and
persistent enemy. Corruption in the Administration, horrible
licensed vice in Manila, the outrages of an irregular contest
beyond even the cruel laws of war and the chartered savagery of
barbarous allies, the treatment of Catholic Christians as heathens,
the desecration of churches, rapine, ravishing and murder; in
what a horrible propaganda of wickedness the United States has
been engaged for months, which are now gathering up their dread
account into years. This explains the censorship which keeps the
truth from America. While all these horrors are going on, because
they do not come within reach of the senses, the defenders of the
Administration rely upon the comfort and prosperity which are
as yet superficially apparent in domestic affairs to dull the ears
and steel the hearts of the American people. It is the old
Imperial idea that nothing matters while there is a plenty of bread
and circuses. It is impossible that we should long remain thus
callous; but, even should we otherwise do so, there is reason to
expect that the inflation of a vastly expanded currency is about to
collapse, and that wages, which have not now the purchasing
power of four years ago, will be reduced or cut off, and that bad
times will arouse the people to the wrong which is being done at
home and abroad.
As for the bogie which the Republican party is trying to
manufacture out of the corpse embalmed in the Democratic
Platform, it may be said that, if it has any living menace, the mind
which could place the Silver Issue in the same plane with or
above the issue of Imperialism would have sacrificed the Union in
the war between the States, rather than have risked the depression
of the currency.
President McKinley, as Governor Boutwell has eloquently
said, was given an opportunity for the enrollment of his name
with that of the Czar of Russia, who emancipated millions of
hereditary serfs; with the name of Lincoln, a name that can never
die; with the name of the Emperor of Brazil, who struck the
shackles from the last slave on the American continent.
President McKinley could have said to the inhabitants of Porto Rico
and the Philippines: "We have acquired the title of Spain, such
as it is; but your title, by possession, is the better title. We are
prepared to surrender the Spanish title to you. The yoke of
Imperialism is broken. Organize free governments and prepare to
found free states, and thus to create happy and prosperous com-
monwealths."
He has refused the great opportunity. And this is the
writing that was written, - "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin."
ERVING WINSLOW.
|
|
| |
