E n3 IP 
 
 .S394 
 Copy 1 
 
 F'OR 
 
 AMERICAN PRINCIPLES 
 
 -AND- 
 
 AMERICAN HONOR 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 BY 
 
 Hon. CARI^ SCHURZ 
 
 DEIvIVERKD IN 
 COOPKR UNION, NK\Sr YORK 
 
 May 24, 1900 
 
 ISSUED BY THE ANTI-IMPERIAI.IST LEAGUE OF NEW YORK 
 
r7/3 
 
 F=OR 
 
 fllVIERIGflJl PHINGIPLES JIHD fllWElJIGflN HONOS. 
 
 By Hon. CARL SCHURZ. 
 
 I have long been, and am now, firmly convinced that, 
 if the facts and tendencies of the imperialistic policy car- 
 ried on by our government were well inquired into and 
 fully understood by the American people, and then sub- 
 mitted to a popular vote on their own merits for approval, 
 that policy would be indignantly spurned by the intelli- 
 gence as well as the moral sense of an overwhelming 
 majority of our citizenship. Its defenders, well aware of 
 this, therefore, make a special effort to mislead that intel- 
 ligence and moral sense by the pretence that their oppo- 
 nents, the anti-imperialists, pusillanimously refuse to 
 meet the responsibilities devolved upon us by the late 
 Spanish war, and that those responsibilities can be dis- 
 charged only by a virtual continuance of the present 
 policy. 
 
 This I emphatically deny. Let us see what our true 
 responsibilities are, and how they should be met. To 
 this end we must first remember whit has happened. In 
 April, 1898, we went to war with Spain for the sole pur- 
 pose, as Congress proclaimed to the world by a solemn 
 resolution, of rescuing from oppressive misrule a popu- 
 lation struggling for freedom and independence. Con- 
 gress not only positively disclaimed any intention to annex 
 to this republic the territory inhabited by that population, 
 but declared that the people of Cuba "are, and of right 
 ought to be, free and independent" — in other words, mat 
 Spain, by her oppressive misrule, had not only morally 
 but actually forfeited her sovereignty over that country. 
 This was the affirmation of a principle. 
 
 Then came Dewey's victory in Manila Bay. The case 
 of the Philippine Islands was in all essential respects 
 
 Gift 2 
 
 Gen. W. Birney 
 N 2 '06 
 
identical with that of Cuba. Their people had also been 
 struggling against Spanish oppression, like the Cubans, 
 and if the Cubans, according to the declaration of Con- 
 gress, "were, and of right ought to be, free and independ- 
 ent," so surely were the Philippine Islanders; and if Spain 
 had, according to our proclaimed doctrine, morally and 
 acluall}^ forfeited her sovereignty over Cuba, so she had 
 forfeited her sovereignty over the Philippines. 
 
 But the claims of the Philippine Islanders as to their 
 independence was in fact even much stronger than that 
 of the Cubans. Dewey invited and brought the chief 
 leader of the Philippine insurgents to the scene of action. 
 With Dewey's aid and under his eyes that chief organized 
 a Filipino army of 30,000 men; he proclaimed the Philip- 
 pine republic, hoisted the flag of that republic on his 
 armed vessels, and set up a civil government which, 
 according to the imperialist Barrett's testimony, compared 
 in some of its important parts favorably with that of 
 Japan. The Filipino army then, while our land forces 
 were gradually arriving, quickly cleared the interior of 
 the country of the Spaniards, taking many thousands of 
 them prisoners, and so hemmed in on the land side the 
 Spanish garrison of Manila that it could neither receive 
 reinforcements nor escape into the interior. lu other 
 words, the Filipinos acted most efficiently as our allies, 
 crippling the Spanish power as we could not have crippled 
 it with our force then at hand; and they were practically 
 recognized as our allies even to the extent of having 
 turned over to them Spanish prisoners taken in a common 
 enterprise. 
 
 And while so profiting from their action as our allies, 
 we — I do not say officially promised them their inde- 
 pendence — but we did what morally amounted to the same 
 thing; we permitted them to believe that in lighting on 
 the same side with us they were fighting for their own 
 independence; we permitted them to believe this until 
 we had troops enough on the field to make us masters of 
 the situation. 
 
 What happened then ? We took Manil« summoning 
 
the Spanish commander to surrender on the very ground, 
 among others, that he was hemmed in on the land side by 
 the Filipinos. And then we proceeded to conclude a 
 peace treaty with Spain. That treaty was to decide the 
 fate of the Philippine islanders. The Filipinos, our allies, 
 whom we had permitted to believe that they were fight- 
 ing for their independence, asked to be heard. We 
 slammed the door in their faces. And behind their backs 
 we extorted, or bought, as you like, from Spain, the com- 
 mon enem}^ the sovereignty over our allies- — the same 
 sovereignty which in the Cuba precedent we had affirmed 
 to have been forfeited by vSpaiu and rightfully to belong 
 to the people of the country. And now we recognized 
 that sovereignty as still possessed by Spain, the common 
 enemy, although we knew that Spain could not deliver 
 any part of it, having not only morally l)ut actually lost 
 it; and we performed this amazing act of treacherous self- 
 stultification, in order to make our late allies our subjects, 
 because we coveted their land. 
 
 Thus we deliberately turned our loudly vaunted war of 
 liberation and humanity into a shameless war of con- 
 quest, which, to adopt President McKinley's own phrase, 
 was in the extreme sense an act of "criminal aggression" 
 — for there was no element of criminality lackiug. We 
 did not stop with the diplomatic betrayal. Weeks before 
 that treaty with Spain acquired any color of legal force 
 by the assent of the Senate, President McKinley issued 
 an order to our army — the notorious "benevolent assimi- 
 lation order" — assuming that our sovereignty over the 
 Philippines did actually exist, and directing the army to 
 enforce it all over the archipelago — as flagrant a usurpa- 
 tion of power as was ever committed. That order was 
 of so inflammatory a character, so clear a declaration ot 
 war against the Filipinos rlemanding freedom and inde- 
 pendence, that Gen. Otis, foreseeing with alarm the con- 
 sequence it would bring ou, tried to suppress it. But, 
 through a subordinate, it became known to the Filipinos, 
 and they understood it as what it was — a declaration of 
 war against them. Then the conflict wantonly provoked 
 
by the President's order came. We destroyed by force 
 the government the Filipinos had set up— a very respect- 
 able government, as all competent vritnesses testify— a 
 far better government than the insurgent Cubans ever 
 had. We carried death and desolation into the towns 
 and villages of our lite allies. We killed many, many 
 thousands of them, and still go on killing them at the 
 rate of i,ooo to 1,500 a month for no other reason than 
 that, as we call it, they refuse to submit to our sover- 
 eignty; but as it may in truth be called, for no other rea- 
 son than that our former allies object to being sold and 
 brought like a herd of cattle, and that they still demand 
 that liberty and independence to which, by the principle 
 we ourselves had affirmed in the case cf Cuba, they are 
 rightfully entitled. 
 
 Some time ago in a public speech I challenged the 
 defenders of our administration to point out in the whole 
 history of the woild a single act of perfidy ever committed 
 by any republican government more infamous than that 
 which has thus been committed by our government 
 against our Filipino allies. That challenge has re- 
 mained unanswered to this day. I now renew it. I call 
 upon them all— from the highest to the lowest— members 
 of the Cabinet, and Senators and Representatives who 
 tell us that the honor and the best interests of the coun- 
 try demand us to approve and sustain such things; and 
 the bishops to whom the moral aspects of the case should 
 be of some consequence; and the laymen who listen to 
 them— I call upon them all to show me in all the annals 
 of mankind a similar instance of more knavish treachery. 
 Let them answer me if they can. And then let them tell 
 me what the responsibilities are growing from such con- 
 duct. 
 
 Is there any doubt about the facts ? They are history. 
 There has indeed been sotiie quibbling as to whether 
 the Filipinos were really our allies. That our govern- 
 ment did not give them the title of allies, is true enough. 
 But did we not use their services as those of allies so long 
 as their services were of any advantage to us ? Did we 
 
not practically treat them as allies during that time, even 
 to the extent of recognizing them as entitled to the 
 charge of prisoners taken from the common enemy by 
 the aid of our arms ? And did not our using them as our 
 allies, and our profiting by their services as our allies, 
 impose upon us the moral obligation to respect them as 
 our allies ? An unscrupulous pettifogger may dispute 
 that, but a mau of honor will not. Let the imperialists 
 answer. There has also been some quibbling as to our 
 having promised them independence. That we did not in 
 formal official declaration promise them independence, 
 is true enough. But did we not, while we were using 
 them as allies, and profiting from their service as 
 allies, know that they believed they were fighting for 
 their own independence, and that they' would not 
 have fought on the same side with us against the common 
 enemy if they had believed otherwise ? And did we ever 
 during that period honestly tell them that they were 
 mistaken ? And as we did not tell them this while using 
 them as allies, was not that morally as good and binding 
 a promise as if it had been written down, signed, sealed, 
 and delivered ? Again, an unscrupulous pettifogger may 
 quibble about this, but an honest man, a gentleman, will 
 not. Let the imperialists answer. 
 
 What, then, is our responsibility growing out of this 
 state of facts? I may be told that this is an extreme and 
 unpractical view of the case; that we must deal with 
 things as they are; that we have got the Philippines 
 now; that the only thing to be considered now is what to 
 do with them; and that all that preceded our getting 
 them is a mere "academic question," useless to discuss. 
 An academic question, indeed ! It may be a very incon- 
 venient question to the imperialists, but that does not 
 make it merely academic. It must be discussed to ex- 
 hibit the moral aspect of the case. Let us look at it. 
 In the first place, we have not got the Philippines yet. 
 We are still fighting and killing people, our late allies, 
 to get control of them. All we have got is, as I have 
 shown, not a moral and rightful, but merely a technical, 
 
title — such a title as an unscrupulous corporation-wrecker 
 may, by legal quirks and technicalities and treachery and 
 force, get to the property of the stockholders. But sup- 
 pose we had won actual possession of the Philippines, 
 Would that alter the moral nature of the question? If 
 we have them we are, in view of the way we got them, 
 in possession of stolen goods -goods obtained by fraud, 
 treachery, and brutal force. We know the goods are 
 stolen goods, for we have stolen them ourselves. 
 When we remind the imperialists of that fact, the an- 
 swer is substantially this: "Spare us the useless discus- 
 sion of that academic question. Suppose the goods are 
 stolen. Then the possession of those goods devolves 
 upon us new responsibilities which in the first place re- 
 quire us to keep the stolen goods." 
 
 Is this really the first demand of the new responsibility 
 of the great American republic ? I have always believed 
 that the republic of Washington and Lincoln should and 
 would always recognize it as the first and highest respon- 
 sibility to give to the world an example of good faith 
 and perfect justice in the recognition of the rights of 
 others, be they ever so humble. Unless I am altogether 
 wrong in this belief, our true responsibilities in the 
 case of the Philippines demands not that we regard it as a 
 mere academic question how we got them, or that we 
 should keep the stolen goods under the sanctimonious 
 pretence of benevolent purposes, but that, as an honest 
 and righteous people, we should restore them to their 
 rightful owners, and to secure, so far as it is in our 
 power, those owners in the possession of them. 
 
 A most startling attempt to justify the retention of 
 the Philippines and the subjugation of their inhabitants 
 has recently been made by Bishop Potter, when he said 
 in a public speech on this matter: "If my son should 
 come to me and say he proprosed to marry a young Creole 
 woman with seven children, I would call him a great ass. 
 But if he had come to me and said he had already con- 
 tracted such a marriage, I should still try to maintain in- 
 timate relations with him. What we have done in the 
 
Philippines has established just such a relation as that, 
 and it would be a source of national mortification if we 
 gave up our responsibilities because we find them diffi- 
 cult." 
 
 With due respect, be it said, no illustration would be 
 more unhappy. It might fit if the Creole woman with her 
 seven children had run after our son entreating him to 
 marry her, or if she had at least wnlliugly consented to 
 his proposal of marriage. But what is the truth ? The 
 poor woman is desperately struggling against our son's 
 treacherous embrace, and our son is busy discharging his 
 "responsibility" to the children by killing them at a 
 rapid rate because they resist the shameful subjugation 
 of their mother. 
 
 Not very long ago the Bishop, keenly appreciating the 
 moral and political tendencies of our imperialistic policy, 
 told his flock that the main question was not what we 
 would do with the "fruits of our victories," but rather 
 what they would do with us. One of the first things they 
 have already done with us, it seems, is so to benumb our 
 moral sense and to confuse our moral principles as to 
 make us capable of cheating our own consciences by 
 putting aside the question of right or wrong in w^at we 
 have done as a mere "academic question" no longer to 
 be discussed, because it is done, and of readily accepting 
 that which exists, however wrongful, degrading, and 
 dangerous, simply because it exists. I would humbly 
 suggest that this is a rather serious thiijg for teachers of 
 religion and morality to contemplate. They might earn- 
 estly consider whether, when we have done wrong, it is 
 not our Christian duty to right the wrong to the utmost 
 of our power; that this is inexorably demanded by our 
 first responsibility as a nation, and that it would, in the 
 Bishop's words, indeed, be a "source of national mortifi 
 cation if we gave up that responsibility because we find 
 it difficult." And this responsibility the imperialists 
 have either not the will or not the courage to meet face 
 to face. 
 
 How is that responsibility to be met ? No sensible man 
 
can doubt that we should have had no war with the Fili- 
 pinos, just as we have had no war with the Cubans, if we 
 had, after defeating the Spaniards, simply applied to the 
 Philippine Islands the same principles which we have ap- 
 plied to Cuba— that is, if we had frankly and sincerely at 
 the start recognized the Philippine Islanders as entitled to 
 their freedom and independence, and then gone about in 
 good faith to aid them in setting up an independent gov- 
 ernment, and let the world know that we would not per- 
 mit any other power to interfere with them, which would 
 have been quite sufficient for their protection. Nor will 
 any sensible person doubt that if we, even to-day, after 
 all that has happened, proclaimed it to be our sincere 
 and fixed intention with regard to them to treat the 
 Philippine Islanders on the same basis of right as that 
 on which we have promised to treat the Cubans, the 
 abominable slaughter would cease at once, and although 
 much natural distrust would have to be overcome, friendly 
 relations with the islanders could be established, with 
 substantially the same desirable results as we might 
 have had more cheaply by honorable and .'statesmanlike 
 conduct at the beginning ? Who has the audacity to deny 
 this? Is there any sound reason why this most right- 
 eous and rational policy should not be adopted ? 
 
 By some it is said that the establishment of an inde- 
 pendent government in the Philippines would at once be 
 followed by bloody anarchy, that those people would 
 forthwith begin to cut one another's throats, and that to 
 prevent this we had to destroy the native government, 
 which at tlie time was in a considerable portion of the 
 conntry in peaceful operation, and that incidentally we 
 had therefore to cut their*throats ourselves. A more 
 ghastly mockery than this objection can hardly be im- 
 agined. In the first place, this prediction of bloody 
 anarchy is a mere guess, without any proof. But even if 
 it were well founded, will any imperialist have the hardi- 
 hood to pretend that those people would in their internal 
 broils have killed half as many, or one-tenth as many, 
 as we have killed and are killing to subjugate them ? 
 
Can we wiio have been and are slaughtering them by 
 the thousands with no end in prospect — can we pre- 
 sume to refuse to them independence, on the ground 
 that there may be disorders that may cost some of them 
 their lives? Can hypocrisy be more impudent and dis- 
 gusting ? 
 
 It is also said that there are great diflSculties in the 
 way of their having an independent government, differ- 
 ences of tribes and the like, and that, therefore, tbey 
 cannot be left to govern themselves. Admiral Dewey, 
 emphatically and repeatedly, from his knowledge of 
 them, pronounced them far more capable of self govern- 
 ment than the Cubans. But if the Cubans are less 
 capable than the Philippine Islanders, must we therefore 
 give up our efforts to secure independent government 
 to that island. 
 
 No doubt, there are difBculties in the way; but I ven- 
 ture to say that at present the greatest of those difficul- 
 ties is in ourselves. There are two ways to approach the 
 solution of such a problem. One is to take the problem 
 in hand with a sincere desire that it be solved. Then 
 many of the difficulties which at first sight appeared most 
 formidable will be found not to be insurmountable at all 
 to an honest, intelligent and persevering effort to over- 
 come them. The other way to approach the problem is 
 with no sincere desire to solve it, or even with the desire 
 that it not be solved. Then difficulties are diligently 
 looked for and magnified until they appear so great that 
 the task of overcoming them seems hopeless. 
 
 Here is the trouble with our imperialists. Determined 
 to make the Philippine Islanders our subjects, they find 
 no end of reasons to show that those people cannot be 
 their own masters. Nothing would be easier than to 
 convince any one desiring to be so convinced that the 
 Cubans, or the Mexicans, or the Chilians are incapable of 
 maintaining decent independent governments, and that 
 therefore we must rule them. Why, it might even be 
 shown that the people of New York City, or of Philadel- 
 phia, or of Chicago, have proved themselves unable to 
 
govern themselves, aud that the conduct of their muni- 
 cipal governments must therefore be entrusted to some- 
 body else better fitted. 
 
 But let us once resolve with perfect good faith to aid 
 the Philippine islanders in constructing an independent 
 government suitable to their conditions, and let us have 
 men in power who are honestly determined to accom- 
 plish that end, and the difiiculties will rapidly diminish. 
 Of course, the Philippines will not have an ideal republi- 
 can government. We have not, for that matter. But let 
 us honestly try together, and they can get an indepeudeut 
 government as good as that of Mexico, and better than 
 those of most of the South American republics. They 
 would probably have such a government now had we not 
 perfidiously drowned it in blood. 
 
 The fine pretence that we must subjugate them in 
 order to teach and secure to them honest government is 
 perhaps not as proudly insisted upon to-day as it was a 
 month ago. It is not too much to say that the recent 
 disclosures in Cuba have advertised our disgrace in that 
 respect to the whole world more glaringly than it had 
 ever been advertised before. Nor can we flatter our- 
 selves with the belief that the Cuban instance is an 
 isolated one. Some time ago Gen. Otis issued an order 
 against evil practices in our administration of things 
 in the Philippines which clearly indicated that our ser- 
 vice there was honeycombed with corruption. Neither 
 is this surprising. My official experience in the conduct 
 of Indian affairs as Secretary of the Interior taught me 
 some pertinent lessons. Why is it so especially difficult 
 to prevent corrupt practices in the Indian agencies? 
 For two reasons: First, because these officers are com- 
 paratively far removed from the observation of the gov- 
 ernment and of the public. Aud, secondly, because a 
 good many of our people have very little regard for the 
 rights and interests of so-called inferior races, and con- 
 sider cheating and robbing such races as a privilege 
 of the superior being. To such men the Philippine 
 Islander is only a "nigger," aud the Cuban and the 
 
Porto Rican but little better; and finding themselves in 
 the transmarine dependencies much farther away from 
 governmental and public observation than even an Indian 
 agent is, they will always be apt to regard these depend- 
 encies as fair fields for plundering operations. The idea 
 that our colonial service will become a seminary of po- 
 litical virtue is, therefore, a highly grotesque one. Most 
 of the rascalities practised there we^ shall, on account of 
 the distance, never know. But in all probability enough 
 will become known to produce an incalculably mischiev- 
 ous eflfect upon the natives and to expose this republic to 
 the ridicule and contempt of mankind. 
 
 It would require the strictest kind of civil service sys- 
 tem, covering all positions, and a most rigorous enforce- 
 ment of it, to counteract such tendencies and tempta- 
 tions. How much of such a system we may expect from 
 an administration which, in spite of the solemn pledges 
 and protestations of its party and of the President him- 
 self, has so much demoralized the system which already 
 exists by opening all sorts of facilities in it to the in- 
 vasion of spoils politics, I leave you- to judge. 
 
 On the whole, that pharisaical cant which was used to 
 envelope this wicked and wanton war of "criminal ag- 
 gression" against the Filipinos in the guise of humani- 
 tarian purpose, has very much subsided. It could not 
 stand against the facts in the case. The declaration of 
 the administration leader in the House of Representa- 
 tives that we want to make all the money we can out of 
 the Philippines, and the equally brutal appeals of greed 
 put forth by the Denbys and Beveridges.are by this time 
 generally taken to reveal the true spirit of the enterprise. 
 
 Now, I am myself very much in favor of the largest 
 possible expansion of our commerce by legitimate 
 means. But must we to that end repudiate the high 
 principles, ideals and traditions of the great Amer- 
 ican republic, and commit the villany of betraying our 
 allies, and slaughter untold thousands of innocent peo- 
 ple who only stand up fur the principles to which we 
 ourselves owe our national existence ? 
 
I have time and again publicly challenged the imperial- 
 ists to deny the fact that we might have had in the Philip- 
 pines for the mere asking all the coaling stations and com- 
 mercial facilities, and all the civilizing agencies, and all 
 the so-called "footholds" for our Asiatic trade we may 
 reasonably desire, if we had treated the Philippine Isl- 
 anders justly as to their right to independence. No im- 
 perialist, to my knowledge, has ever denied this. I ask 
 them now whether there can be any doubt that we can 
 have all these accommodations and facilities and priv- 
 ileges to-day without striking a further blow, if we stop 
 the present iniquitous slaughter by honestly and eflfect- 
 ually recognizing their right to independence. Who 
 doubts this? Who, then, will deny that even from the 
 legitimate commercial point of view our treatment of the 
 Philippines is as uncalled for and wanton as it is cruel, 
 treacherous and disgraceful, and that we can still correct 
 the colossal blunder we have made by doing justice as 
 an honest nation if we only resolve to do so ? 
 
 Indeed, there may be some persons expecting to make 
 more money out of the Philippines if we subjugate them at 
 the cost of ever so much blood and devastation, and then 
 rule them by a substantially despotic sway. But who are 
 they ? Not th^ people at large, especially not the labor- 
 ing masses, but a favored few. And here I invite the 
 special attention of our conservative fellow citizens who 
 are so much alarmed at the possibility that the political 
 struggles in this democracy — a democracy working 
 through universal suffrage —may develop into a struggle 
 of the poor against the rich. Have the}' considered 
 how apt this kind of imperialistic policy will be to incite 
 and hasten such a development ? What was it that so 
 powerfully aroused the masses of the American people 
 about the law denying the Porto Ricans free trade with 
 the United States? It was the sudden revelation of what 
 imperialism really is — the arbitrary rule of one people 
 over another; it was the breach of promise of freedom 
 and prosperity we had given the Porto Ricans, who from 
 the v3epth of their misery and despair vainly appealed to 
 
our sense of justice; it was the spectacle of the President 
 and the Secretary of War abandoning for some reason their 
 emphatic declarations of "plain duty." It was, indeed, 
 all this, but it was something more. It was the fact that 
 this Porto Rican business appeared like the lifting of a 
 curtain behind which the people saw the figures of a 
 group of men trying to control, and to a large extent ac- 
 tually controlling, our government to enrich themselves 
 by manipulating our colonial policy. What impression 
 do you think that such a scene must produce upon the 
 popular mind at a time when "plutocracy" is a word in 
 everybody's mouth ? 
 
 Far more than any other kind of government does a 
 democracy working through universal suffrage need the 
 conservative influence of high principles and ideals of 
 right and justice, and ©f popular beliefs founded upon 
 such principles and ideals; for when they disappear the 
 evil passions of covetousness and of selfish ambition take 
 their place and become the only motive power of action, 
 there remaining nothing higher to appeal to. And that 
 is the direction in which the imperialistic policy is driv- 
 ing us. Nothing can be more dangerous in a democracy 
 like ours than the prevalance of the notion that might is 
 right— a notion involving the worst kipd of anarchy, 
 above and below. And that principle is preached and 
 proclaimed every day by this imperialistic policy. Is it 
 not high time that the American people, sobered from 
 the debauching intoxication of victory, should rise up 
 again to a just appreciation of the true responsibility of 
 this great republic? That true responsibilit}' is its re- 
 sponsibility for the maintenance of the great principles 
 upon which it was founded. It is its responsibility for 
 the great lesson it is to administer to mankind that true 
 democracy means not o.nly the assertion of one's own 
 rights, but also a just respect for the rights of others, and 
 that this democracy of ours is able to resist the tempta- 
 tions which might seduce it from its fidelity to that high 
 obligation. It is its responsibility for the fulfilment of 
 the great promise expressed by Abraham Lincoln on the 
 
 14 
 
battlefield of Gettysburg, that "government of the people, 
 by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the 
 earth." 
 
 Who will deny that this responsibility — our true, our 
 paramount responsibility — imperatively demands the 
 abandonment of a policy to subjugate as subjects to our 
 arbitrary rule another people aspiring to liberty and inde- 
 pendence ? That there are difficulties in the way of that 
 abandonment is true. But those difficulties, as I have 
 shown, do not consist in their setting up au independent 
 government with our aid and assistance, and in our pro- 
 tecting them against foreign interference. The main 
 difficulty — the only real difficulty — is in ourselves. It is 
 the difficulty of baffling the greed of some persons who 
 want to rule that country for exploitation; it is the 
 difficulty of curbing our own vanity and false pride, 
 which would persevere in an ambitious course how- 
 ever wicked, because we have once entered upon it. 
 These difficulties of meeting our true responsibility is 
 great; but to quote Bishop Potter's words again, it would 
 indeed "be a source of national mortification if we gave 
 up our responsibility because we find it difficult." But if 
 we do overcome those difficulties and fulfil the duty 
 imposed upon us by our true responsibility, the Ameri- 
 can people will stand before the world in an attitude of 
 moral greatness never surpassed in the annals of man- 
 kind; for we shall have shown that we cannot only take 
 cities and conquer hostile armies, but that, which is 
 infinitely more glorious, we can, when we have done 
 wroug, conquer ourselves. 
 
 I have been told on very good authority that many of 
 the leading Republicans are heartily sick of the whole 
 Philippine business, and that they sincerely wish we had 
 never taken a foot of ground on the Philipinnes and were 
 now rid of the whole concern. I have good reason for 
 believing it. But why have they not the moral courage 
 frankly and publicly to say so ? Why do they not in the 
 open light of day appeal to the President, and to Con- 
 gress, and to their party to give up that accursed "crimi- 
 
nal aggression," and to do that which is just and right 
 and would be most honorable to the American people ? Is 
 their moral sense so enslaved by a wretched party spirit 
 that it must humbly cower under a dictation which they 
 cannot but detest and be ashamed of? Surely they could 
 do no better service to themselves and to their country 
 than by emancipating their consciences like men. 
 
 You will have observed that in reciting the acts of our 
 government I said: '* JVe have done this, and we have 
 done that." I used that form of expressson for the sake 
 of brevity. In justice to the American people it should 
 be corrected. No, it was not the American people that 
 instigated or even sanctioned by their assent the betrayal 
 of American principles in the attempt to subjugate a for- 
 eign population and' in ruthlessly destroying them. 
 Those things have indeed been done in the name of the 
 American people; but it may justly be said that the his- 
 tory of Macbiavelian politics shows few instances of a 
 more unscrupulous "confidence game" than that of which 
 the American people have in this case been made the vic- 
 tim by means of an artful censorship of news, of sancti- 
 monious cant disguising evil deeds, and of other equally 
 unscrupulous contrivances. What the American people 
 really think, what understanding and appreciation they 
 really have of their responsibilities, they will soon have 
 the first opportunity for declaring; and as I began by say- 
 pig, and now repeat, I am firmly convinced, that if the 
 question were submitted to them on a reasonably clear 
 issue, an overwhelming majority of the American people 
 would show themselves eager to demonstrate their moral 
 soundness by washing their hands of this bloody iniquity, 
 and by thus making it manifest to all the world that they 
 are an honest and just people, and that the republic of 
 Washington and Lincoln still lives. 
 
 For copies, address the Anti-Imperialist League of New 
 York, 150 Nassau St., Room 1502, or P. O. Box iiii. New 
 York City. 
 
 A. 30. 5. Ju^y. 1900- 
 
 16 
 
 LIBKHKY Uh UUNUKtbb 
 
 013 717 915 5 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 00137179155