|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
|
Bryan or McKinley? The Present Duty of American Citizens.
VI. The Vital Issues of the Campaign.
by North American Review, The
|
The crucial issue of this Presidential campaign is, whether
we shall keep or lose our present prosperity at home and our new
gains and prestige abroad. We know what we now have. We
know that a change of Administration would reverse our
existing policies, both domestic and foreign, and overturn their
results. The decisive question of the hour is whether the American
people want such a change.
There are many broad differences between the policies and
purposes of the two great parties, as now led. They touch the
sanctity of the courts, the power inherent in nationality, the
efficiency of a protective tariff, and various other subjects. But,
while other matters are at stake and will be affected by the result,
the battle this year is waged over two central and conclusive
questions. First: Shall we maintain the existing gold
standard, with business confidence and stability, or shall we change to
the silver standard, with an immediate and inevitable financial
convulsion? Second: Shall we fulfill the duties and
responsibilities and preserve the advantages which have come to us with
the expansion of our country, or shall we renounce the
obligations of our victories and abandon all that we have gained?
Whatever other phases may be suggested, whatever sidelights
may be thrown on the contest, the vital struggle turns on these
two salient and overshadowing propositions. The paramount
issue of a campaign is determined, not by the assertion of any
candidate or convention, but by the obvious effect of the election
and the relative importance of its results in their bearing on the
welfare of the people. It is fixed, not by declarations, but by
events and consequences. We measure issues by practical tests.
We knew and felt the hard times from 1893 to 1897. We know
and feel the good times since. Both conditions were and are
visible, tangible and palpable. They are within the
consciousness of every man. They have directly affected every man's
interest and well-being.
We hear a great deal about Imperialism as a paramount
issue, but who sees it or feels it as we see and feel hard times or
good times? Whatever it is, it is already here, according to the
phantom-fanciers; it has been here ever since our flag waved over
the new possessions; with such Caesarism actually oppressing us,
we ought to know it and groan under it. But, as a matter of
fact, are there any real evils which men are suffering from it,
and of which they are so conscious that, in order to escape these
evils, they are ready for business panic and calamity? The
supporters of President McKinley point to a real, living,
unparalleled prosperity, and contend that the success of their opponents
would blight it and bring disaster. The supporters of Mr. Bryan
point to an imaginary "Imperialism," and contend that the
success of their opponents would continue it. Would the
continuance of this spectre, whatever it may be, have any such direct
and vital bearing on the immediate interests, happiness and
welfare of the people as a change from good times to hard times?
Which, then, is the paramount issue?
If Mr. Bryan's election would produce the result of
overturning our existing prosperity, this question manifestly
transcends all others in importance. If any issue he represents
involves that effect, it is plainly paramount, whether called so or
not. No other question, significant as it may be, can approach
in supreme consequence that of preserving the general well-being,
content and success of the great body of the people. Now, our
present prosperity can be wrecked and general disaster produced,
either by the actual adoption of the silver standard or by such
menace and fear of its adoption as would destroy confidence.
Mr. Bryan was defeated in 1896 because the country realized that
his election would bring in free silver and the silver standard,
with its destruction of confidence, its unsettlement of values, its
paralysis of enterprise and industry, and its universal losses. He
holds to the same policy now, and, in the event of his election,
what is to prevent the same result?
He publicly declares that the gold standard shall not remain,
if he is able to get rid of it. If he is honest and sincere in the
convictions he has expressed for years, he is bound to make
warfare on the gold standard. The way for attack is just as clear
now as it was in 1896, except for the currency law passed last
winter. That is the only obstacle to the silver standard which
did not exist when Mr. Bryan was running before. It is an
effective barrier in the hands of an Administration that wants to
make it such. But it is only a statutory enactment, capable of
being amended by another Congress, or of being neutralized by
an unfriendly Administration. A popular current strong enough
to elect Mr. Bryan would inevitably elect a Bryan House of
Representatives. It would carry States with Senatorial elections
pending that would assure a close and doubtful Senate. A
President aggressively for the free coinage of silver at sixteen to one
and an uncertain and plastic Congress would make it an
imminent danger. Even if Congress did nothing, a compliant
Secretary of the Treasury, agreeing with Mr. Bryan and obedient to
his directions, could pay coin obligations in silver and practically
paralyze the statute. Law does not enforce itself. It is inert
unless executed. A hostile and ineffective Administration makes
it a dead letter.
But the deadly effect would be felt without waiting for direct
action. The menace and fear of the silver standard, even before
its accomplishment, would blight our prosperity. The election
of Mr. Bryan would at once excite that alarm. He has publicly
announced that he would summon the new Congress in extra
session immediately on taking his seat. If he were elected in
November, the country would know that, in four months, the
Pandoras box of evils of a silver President and a dubious
Congress would be opened. The uncertainty and apprehension thus
created would destroy the general sense of confidence and
security. Nobody would know what to count on. Confidence is the
vital breath of trade and enterprise. Destroy confidence, and
you undermine the foundation of mens dealings. Values would
tumble, panic would come, and widespread disaster would follow.
And it must not be overlooked that the disaster would be
greater now than it would have been in 1896. It is the
characteristic of human nature, long associated with possible perils, to
minimize them and lose its dread. Pompeii, familiar with the
terrors of Vesuvius, ceased to fear until the fiery avalanche came.
The submersion and destruction of Galveston from a tornado and
a tidal wave had long been predicted, but years of escape had bred
thoughtlessness of the danger. Johnstown grew and prospered
and lived merrily under an overhanging reservoir, but at last the
cataclysm overtook it. In 1896, the menace of the silver
standard, with all its perils, was new and startled the country. The
awakened sense of a great possible catastrophe put us on guard,
and it was warded off. That escape, and continued familiarity
with a threat which did not eventuate, have served to benumb and
deaden the general sense of danger; but, in reality, the calamity
of Mr. Bryans election, with the consequent financial convulsion
and business distress, would be far severer now than it would
have been in 1896.
The reason is that we have more to lose. We have farther
to fall. We should be plunged to the same depths from a higher
altitude. In 1896, we had already suffered four years of hard
times and low prices. Widespread bankruptcy, universal
depression and a general fall of values had brought us down toward the
silver level. We should have dropped, but dropped from a low
plane. On the other hand, if we fall now we shall fall from a
loftier height with more disastrous results. Prices, values,
securities, wages are all far higher than they were in 1896. They
are on the recognized and accepted gold level, with the buoyancy
of unprecedented prosperity, and a fall to the silver level would
produce an immeasurable shock. The sudden realization of such
a possibility through Mr. Bryans election would immediately
shatter confidence, and cause the greatest financial convulsion the
country has ever seen. Our markets are more closely connected
with those of Europe than ever before. With our present
splendid financial standing we have become a creditor nation The
Powers of Europe are coming to us for large loans. The
upheaval of our markets by the threat of the silver standard would
convulse the Bourses of London, Paris and Berlin, which would
react here, and the sweeping extent of the financial, business and
industrial calamity would be beyond calculation.
In domestic affairs, therefore, the vital issue of the campaign
is between the gold standard and the silver standard, between
prosperity and panic. In the very nature of the case, because
it directly touches the daily life and well-being of every man,
woman and child in the country, this issue must overshadow
all others in practical importance. When we pass to the
questions which have grown out of the Spanish war and of the
resulting territorial acquisitions, the attitudes of the two
candidates are equally distinct, and the conclusion must be equally
decisive. These questions are substantially concentrated in the
discussion over the Philippines. President McKinley recognizes
the duty of maintaining our sovereignty and giving the people
of the islands self-government as fast as they are prepared for it.
He follows Jefferson's course in Louisiana and Monroe's in
Florida. Mr. Bryan, on the other hand, proposes to abandon
our sovereignty, to set up a supreme government of Aguinaldo
and his followers, to recognize its independence, and to maintain
its independence and authority against domestic violence and
foreign aggression by an American protectorate.
Here are two distinct, sharply defined plans of procedure.
What they involve most, under limitations of space, be stated
in few words. President McKinleys plan holds what we have
gained; maintains our authority, which is recognized by all of the
outside world and accepted by all of the Filipinos, except a small
and diminishing band of insurgents whose insurrection will cease
the moment he is re-elected; requires no additional but a
decreasing force; and develops the inhabitants into self-rule. Mr.
Bryans plan surrenders the only authority now existing in the
islands; undertakes to establish the rule of Aguinaldo;
precipitates a bloody conflict among the inharmonious tribes, which,
while bowing to us, will not recognize each others dominance;
leaves the islands open to foreign complications and aggression;
and, after giving a free hand to the Filipinos, commits us to
protect them against these inevitable dangers. Mr. Bryans idea,
as indicated both in his earlier speech and in his recent letter of
11 acceptance, is to protect them by the Monroe doctrine. This
shows an astonishing confusion of mind. The Monroe doctrine
is a policy framed for the protection of this hemisphere and
limited to the American half of the world. Europe recognizes
and respects it, because it is confined to the two Americas. Un-
dertake to extend it to Europe or Asia or Africa, and it would
break down here. In assuming to apply it for the protection of
the Philippines, Mr. Bryan would destroy its force for the
protection of America.
Besides thus dealing the dealiest blow at the Monroe
doctrine through its complete misconception and misapplication, his
policy would equally approach the militarism and imperialism he
professes to abhor. There is no imperialism in lawfully
maintaining our rightful sovereignty, as we do in Alaska. There is
no militarism in suppressing revolt against our authority, as we
do in Arizona. But, in undertaking to set up the government
of another power where we had expressly surrendered sovereignty
and title, Mr. Bryans policy involves imperial prerogative. And
in assuming responsibility for Aguinaldos administration, while
abdicating all authority of our own, it would require a far larger
force than is needed to maintain our existing rights, and would
give an exhibit of militarism. His policy for the Philippines is
as fatal as his policy of free silver.
CHARLES EMORY SMITH.
|
|
| |
