E f% ( i %5 ( — % 8 1..j Democracy and Imperialism ADDRESS bv the Hon Thomas Mott Osborne delivered at the Teuth Annual Meeting THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST BOSTON November 30, I908 LEAGUE ress of the Ca imbridge Chrouicle Cambridge, Mlass. I Democracy and Imperialism.n Novlember 14t1h there appeared the fotllowing letter in the Splrinlgtild ](-publicann: 'To tli Edlitor of the I;clublica.: --- — \\ith the crushing defeat of Bryan at tile late election, lid it not incorporate, also, an equal defeat to anti-imperlialism. Sirely there is nothing in evidence exhibiting a shalow of strength in tile opposition of antiilmperialists to Taft. Their feeble influence, heretofore seems to have ebbed toward that obli-ion "whence no traveler ever returned." It is well their mission has ended, nnd their uin-Americanism has become nothingues.. MAann schemes of listurbance have ap)pe'red1 and dlisappeare( at llany periods in the past —anti-imperialilsm has had its black blot in the history of iur country. alid lies dead in the graveyard of dead isms and issues-dead, witllout leaving:i mark of influence. L. B. Merriam. Springfield, November 13, 1908. The logic of this interesting epistle is no less curious thani it6 literary composition. It is, of couIse, open to anyone to draw whatever conclusions he likes from the late election; and it lias lo,}ng been a favorite game with politicians to read into election returns anything whatever that seemls to favor their own particular interests; but it would puzzle the average person to discover any particular defeat of anti-imperialism that has occurlred this year. So far as tle ordinarv observer can see, no issue of the kind was made in the presidential campaign;-and perhals some of us think that Mr. Bryan made a veiious mistake thereby. and that he would have been far stronger before the country if he had not to all appearances lost, interest in the subject upon which he once made a very great speech-perhaps the finest he ever delivered.- that at Il (iaInapolis ill 1900). Litt whether or not this last thilng be Irue, it is certainly traiisparontly obvious tlat not ill this last calllipaigli, nor ever ill any campllaign, hlave thle )people of the I'inited States beent able fairly t( express thlleir jullldgllll t o0 tlie subject of imperialisml. Jit 1J()0, w\ile1 it was m11ade. a ilatter of debat{e, this (lll1stioi \w\as so 0colp)licaLttel witli tlie free silver issue, aild tliat of.Mr. h1vaI's 1pelrsonality, tlhat titere (culld be no lgenllille expressionl of judgIlmenlIt upon it. In 1904 thle subject was ignored; as it was againl in 190'. Ilow antiillperialisml can be defeated, wlhen it lias lnever been an issue, \\te l uist leave Air. iMlerriaillt to explain. Th'le truth is, of course, that it is impossible to defeat a moral is.sue. 'Through stupidity or self-interest we may for a time fail to gra-:p tlle ethical principles involved; through tlie faithlessness or indifference of its temporary guardians the affirmative side nmay sutffer eclipse for tile inmoent, or may even be defeated il one for'ii only to reappear in another; but if the issue be a genulinle moral one-if the affirmative side be founded on tlhe everlasting foundations of righteousness, you can no more kill it than vo(u can kill tlie miathematical truth that two adi(h two mitake four. ('Consider how many times in our history tile anti-slavery issue was leclared killed. Time and time again, as compronmise after comupronmise was brought about,-as one victory of the slavery inlterest and its northern allies succeeded another, that great nioral issue w'as buried witl considerable ponmp and circumstaince, an(l its funeral oration preaclhed ill mIarket-place and seiiat le amlid great plublic rejoicings. Yet, (eve' before these )proceedlings were well under way, there again arose the issue, still alive an(l troublesome, clamoring itld(ed( for death (for such issles (1d( not willingly live-it is only tlhe folly of man tlhat prolongs their lives), but seeking tie only dissolution pssille ---tliat lbroullit about b- boldly facing thle truth and doing the right. Ant i-hlmperialisni, therefore, is still with us, wve cannot get rid of it: it will remain with us-cannot indeed be separated from us ---- until those in whose power it lies shall deliver us froll t lie body of this deathl. 'lThc lmorle otne reflects upon tile true cllaracter a1(n mission of the Inllite(l States of \Amcrica, tlhe 1ore clear the folly and pervetrsity of our imperialist experiment becomes; and the more wretclhedly sulperficial seems the reasoning by which it is defended..et us consider the question; taking the Philippinmes for o)11r text. The m11aill facts are ilI11ile enough': IlI the courtlse of tile contest with Spain, growing out of her colonial troubles in (u'lln, ur ship}s ot' a\ r l(atry-te tv tlie Sp:111iish Ilieet inl tll(e liarbor of lManlila, tl111l - Ii l l gin l,' 111 (':l tile totterin g Sp)allisl I,w\\ r iln tlie I )ilipplies4' an1d pr'ovillg for tlie hundredth tiel tlllat iln war outlying colonies are a sourcce of great weakness. 'lThe 1' ililnos, like tlie Cubans, liad long been restless and dlisc-,ltententCd lnder1 Spanish misrule. Soinethilng ill the nature of a native gc)vernllenllt (just how nmuch is disputed) had grown up as Spain's lhold onl the Islands lhad relaxed. \\hen tle timell caine to iiake a treaty of peace between the UInited States. and Spain, instead( of recognizing tlie rights of the lFilipinos to be free, as we cdi( in the case of tile inhabitants of Cuba, we boullght tlhe Islands of Spain for $20.000,00, tilnis paving, as was estiliated at the time, about fifty cents apiece for the inhabitants. \Ve assumed possession of tle Islands annd have held them ever since by force of arms. But the treaty under which the Ulnited States assumed ( wnerslip of the hllilippines was not confirmed without oppositiol; it was liitterlv opposed by representatives of both parties; a;nd onlyv 1 thle exertionl (,f all tlie pressure of tlie governmenit (lid tlhe treaty pass tlhe senate by just tlie repiuired iinber of votes. A sllift of one vote would have prevented our emn)barking ont this ventiure of inlperialiism: nand since that time, as lihas been stated, the country lhas never had a fair chance to pass its verdict upon the policy which was then forced upon it. We Anti-Tmperialists mnake the broad assertion that this country, being as it is a democracy. las no business to o wn subject colonies. What are tlie arguments which we meet? First: That. tlie battle of Manila created a situation from which we could not afterwards escape. That we do not want tle Islands, but cannot let them go. Never mind whetlher the details used to bolster up this argument be correct or not; whether or not the Filipinos fired first on our soldiers on some important occasion; whether Ag?.uinaldo was a patriot or a mere disturber; is it broadly true tihat there ever wa~ or c o ld be a situation in which we were powerless to set the Tslands free? T'he qluection is almost too silly to be answered with a straight face. Suppose you live on a lonely farn in the suburbs, and a gang of touglhs come and take possession of it; feast on your provisions, and make free with your hard-earned property; and suppose some day a squad of policemen makes its appearance,ld drives away the ruffians: what would your feelings be if the policemen shouki in turn proceed to.Bettle thetnselvei da posseissors of the property, allegring that they couldn't go awav biecause a situation had been created that mtade it iiceess,-ar- fott heml to coltititue ill pu~ssv',~Stoti. Inl the xtido~t of ou~r Revoilutionary str uggle wvith Gireat 8rtin FIranece cante to our astne. Suppo-se atter the 1.4attlv(t' of \oklo)Nvi, 1De( ritsse, oeltautbeatt and Lafayvette had landed enough enii to t'ow\ our ancestors into submttission; andi lhien, thrustingo Washinigtonl aside, had coolv assunied sovereigigy, allegingo that a situiation had beetn created that made it necessary to continue in possessioit. As a matter of fact, dlid F'raniee f1i(1 any difficulty wvhatever in hanidling the situation inl 1,781, a1ccord(ing to the dictates of decency and homior'~ Whv should wve hiave found itso difficult in 189S, I ad we so desired, there wits albsolutelv nothing" to prevenlt our1 leaving'r tile Islands to thiemselves-to) the people to wvhomr they belouige~d. There is nio. in hierent dithiciiltv today. The dithic'tiltiv (5vwilch have been uie(d as a l'ealSoi ate thlo.se,~ \ wichvI We oIt'e ye`-(1\s ceteated; and niothling is easier t hata to cret'Ctte an (h)bstaclc IIs aill ex!I-.cise for following~ our own inielinationi. Le t usI e fran: Wik t ate keepitig tI lies~latls tiot because14 we( eatiimt, it one awy, t ttwecause we eithier (1.0 not w~ant to ('one away, or thinik, lot' s~otte IT'eLsOli, weT oui0,jt ntot to (10 s0. Tlle for1Iniier wouhi arise tromt mnot ive~ of self-linterest; the I.latter fitott a seutse of obllozatiout to tile Fil ipiiuos. 'I'hiis bri'ii)" 115s to thle NOilatgitttieiit: We littut kolitillit(' 4 itt, Phiilipplines adlv(Iitnte fir the sakle of whlat We ean11 OCt- ('itt Th'lere wa,.s a t llne whlen it wvas I'eci'ogt i&( Ili t 1ti t uWt('t'(tt( I IItI dIeI I lIe ~ie t nes ot I a nt ion I ThIIat to be, \Vi was to be s'ul ad nlighty. 'la~pauis victoryV over Rus-sia ought to dse that. tite-wvorn alac for 4at leas-t the present genieration, and1 it wouldl~ not today be eouttplimienttar.v to a muon1 re-~-lil POW(Ill to ehlta i'g' h'Ii wvith lioldina' suc anl opinlion: butf the 1m1ias;s Of d ie people never sn rreulders reoneie opinlions" unl-olv leecause tI hey\ involve hal IgIIe. Sluch fa ihicieFs die slo~kvlV: aw11 therse isz SchI anl appea-l to thle imtiag"inaItuin inl va.I;t stretcesl" of the Same ecolor u~pon tile map,11 of the world, that tlte idea fasteCns itself uipon us every time we endeavor to shake it otY. But surely wve Itave g-ot beyond the necessity of treatingo suich an idea as a serious argument, withi intelligent people. Tin extent, the Philippines add nothing to our dignity as a natiton: in ease of war they would be a weakness as they were to Spain they have no' com on ground withi uis of race. l anguiage. r'elig~lios oi' political1 ideails. As. an addition to out Territlory they are a pure incumbrance. But there are thoe who would keep the lsanid becIause of Ilheir wealtlh: be[(cau.et it wolltl li, ani adlvalltalg tlo us to l",,velop") tilemll. Ite'lducid t<> its:ilpipl't termls, thils i- t le arielllellt of tle slave-dlriver wlho workvd.l lhi., "niger" ftri tlie Itlet'tit of lls own poct'ket. International illo'rality dotr.> i t 'exi.-t f11r -uc people. I)eat to tlte t lachings,f history, tlihey think.,lly of.t l )os iiility tf lrlsonal pet. llllialv advalllllage. 'Ti'll nlit' inld oilV 1 bit uf e'thical advi.e whic hl tll,. ll U111del'lst:aldl or e-temt'll is that of lagIn: "lPt llnole in tly purse"" Yet nothing is more certain tlian the ultimate failure of all -cliemes to work colonies for the financial benefit of the mothercounltry; or dependencies for the advantage of the masternation. Individuals may grow fat with plunder, bult, as a whole, neitlher countrv nor colonv thrives. Ilngland has, first anl last, lavished large sunis lupon Inlia - not counting tlie valuable lives she llas sacrificed; it lias been nlanifestly a losing game for her. Nor }ias the blrden of imperialism fallen alone upon England. for there seems to be little if any doubt that in India itself the average wealtli of the inhabitants has seriously decreased since careful statistics began to be taken; and tlhat the people are steadily getting poorer and Where selfislhness rules, the situlation is far worse' tlie,reater the anlount of wealth tr, be exploited and the easier it is to be gained, tle worse for both coulntries. Look at the colllimand(ing position of Spain in tlie sixteenth century and her rapid deciadence. Students of history agree that tle chief cause thereof was tlhe riches p(,ired iiito her lap from the N ewv Wo(rldl. If tlle love of money is the root of all evil, it in lnearned wealtll tihat is tle Devil's favorite anl mo6st dangerous play-thing. If we are to kleep the Philippines, it is greatly to ie hoped tliat tile riclie- of the Islands remain hard for u11 to (.tt, ani( snmall i allount: and if it onlitinues to, be a serious 1 sinllg entlurell in a 01 l Acommercial sens-e- so imuch tlie better! We mlay tile soonec belhold tle alglit! To keep the Islands for the mere sake of increasing our territory is silly: to keep them for the purpose of robbing them of their wealtl is wicked. There remains. however, one other consideration along this line; for there is wealth in the Philippines which may be secured without robbery,-the wealth that comes fro-m honest, legitimate trade. If there were time. this point would be wvorthy of developIment at length: but I must simply point out that the wealth of clommeree-tlie hclne.-t wealth that comes to both sides through the natural exchange of commodities-can be just as well, and indeed far better, carried on between friends as between master and subject. When Massachusetts was an unwilling dependency of England, she refused to trade with the mothercountry; when the United States was at war with England in 1814, Massachusetts almost severed the union rather than give up her trade with the old enemy. You cannot gain or secure the blessings of trade by issuing orders to dependencies, or even by treaties; for trade is done between individuals for the benefit of themselves as individuals; and you cannot force individuals to trade where they do not wish to. Trade requires a state of mind, and it will be far better between the United States and the Philippines if the latter are set free, than if they are unwillingly held; especially if our absurd tariff wall were broken down so as to allow of natural and free interchange of commodities. At present we hold fast the Islands and erect a barrier to obstruct trade; could anything be more hopelessly futile and ridiculous as a business proposition? Next we come to the arguments based upon nobler grounds -the welfare of the Filipinos; and the point is urged that we must maintain our rule over the Islands because the inhabitants are unable to uphold a government of their own. If we should -withdraw, anarchy would ensue. The first answer to this argument is that we have no right to assume anything of the kind; the second is that even anarchy is to be preferred to tyranny. I confess my own conception of the principles of democracy is such that, if the people of any land prefer anarchy to any form of established government, I say, by all means let them have it; perhaps it is a stage in their evolution which is necessary-just as children have to pass through a period of teething-whether or no. Moreover, let us not forget that what may appear anarchy to people across the ocean may not seem the thing at all at close quarters. T)uring our Civil War, Europe saw the great American Republic involved in hopeless anarchy and confusionapparently going down in ruins; and it was seriously proposed to interfere and stop such unseemly breach of the world's peace. Yet we know now, and the wisest knew at the time, that that great conflict was necessary to preserve the Union; that it was not anarchy that was going on, but the relaying of the foundations of democracy. So the anarchy argument fails, whether looked at from the historical or the ethical point of view. As an historical fact, what we mean by anarchy in such a case-serious social confusion-has been again and again the outward evidence of deep seated IllovetlenClts, \licll reClllt ill tile iforulation of some system of government best fitted for the time and circumstances. Never yet in the world's history has one nation been ultimately successful in forcing upon another its own civilization and ideals in order to prevent anarchy. We (all warp, distort or (lestroy a tree, or we can assist in creating favorable conditions for its growth and development, hut t (' c(innot make it )'row. The principle of life is in the tre ---and in the free elements about it-in thle sunshine andl the air' we can only assist tile processes of nature, we cannot substitute our own. The Philippines are entitled to their own forlll of development,-be it apparent anarchy or manifest progress; Japan has shown what freedlom froml outside interference call (to when a nation lhas within itself tlie germ of spontaneous anll rapid growth. Perhaps the Filipino has the same (God-like faculty. Let us beware how we assume that lie has it not; and warp, distort or lcstroy the purposes of God. Next w\e are told that'we must hold the Islands to prevent their being seized upon by some other power-Great Britain, Germany or Japan. This argument is no less flimsy than the last. One might begin )b hlazarding the suggestion that if it is a question of the Filipinos being held in subjection by some one, perhaps the inhabitants might prefer to choose their own guardian; possibly they would gain by t}he rule of Japan or Great Britain rather than "benevolent assimilation" by the United States. Why should we assume that our own particular nile is so necessary to the Philippines? THas it not borne bitter fruit already? Hm it escaped violence and blood-shed? Does it satisfy the people of the Islands? Have we been so successful in perfecting the details of our own form of government that we are justified in deciding upon those for other people? And if these questions are all answered satisfactorily, there still remains the fact that nothing could be simpler than to take the Philippines under our protection and say to every nation in the world: "Hands off!" It would be as easy to protect the Islands in the character of a generous and unselfish friend as in that of an imperious overlord, and perhaps easier. Our attitude toward Cuba convicts us of ridiculous inconsistency out of hand.* *rThe "neutralization" of the Philippines is, of course, to be preferred to any protectorate; a guarantee by all the powers that the Islands will be let alone;-allowed to develop naturally, as Japan has developed. Next cones the argumlent that it is our duty to civilize and educate the inhabitants of the Islands, with or without the implied admission that they are to be set free solle time or other. If true civilization, if the true education of a people con-.sits in material things, in good roads, fine bridges, uniformied police, all those wonderful evidences of administrative efficiency, such as are to be seen il India, for example, then I trant that it can probably be produced in the Philippines under our rule much quicker than by home rule. A veneer of civilization under imperialism is (cmparatively easy to produce, —andl there are no sights more impressive or superficially alluring than the relics of RIonian imperialism of old, or of British imperialism of totlay; but was not that the very kind of civilization which our ancestors spurlned, when they threw away the comforts and refinements of IEnglish sovereignty? EIdulcation of a sort can be forced wherever vou have the power-there are no places in the world so offensively and tragically clean as your prisons; but is that a kind of education we demand for our own children'? (or vwould accept even at tliel point of tihe bayonet? What business have we to go to the other side of tlhe globe. to a laiud where, )by accident, we( have1 thl power.,and say: "'l'les.- are our ideas (of what is good for youl: a1 ld we i)popose to civilize and educate you acocorldinlg to these il dea It mRake- no dlifferlece wh\at you want t or donlt want, wth:t vot like or dislike, we propose to (lecide for you. You muit submit; 1beause we are stronger than Vou an(l can bleat voi. and if neee;sary, will beat you into submission." England lhas )bee trying this sort of thing in Tndia for over a hundred years; and doing it much better (for reasons to be mlentioned later) than we can ever hope to do it. Is it a success? Certainly wonderful admlinistrative efficienicy has been shown there; as a great London paper has recently said, and said truly: "We have made life and property secure; we have administered justice to all men; we have spread the benefits of education far and wide; we have allowed freedoin of speech and freedom of the press; we have respected religion and religious prejudice with care; we have upheld a standard of scrupulous purity and honesty in public affairs; we have thrown open to the utmost possible extent the service of India to the Indians; we have run the road and bridged the river: above all, perhaps, we have made men of millions of down-trodden ,erfs; we have been tile ilediate cause that tilte llative of Ilndia has coliet to respect himself." All this have E:nglishmen done fur India, and what is the result Are they beloved by the people,f India Is the English rule accepted with gratitude for all its splendid un-.eltish work-for all thle humlan lives and treasure expended upon it? lead your newspapers. India is seething witll discon tent; the Viceroy has recently had to albandon his trip of in-.pection and has returned under a heavy guard to Calcutta; in the different provinces bombs are being hurled at tihe chief officials, and murders are becoming alarmingly frequent; lnative nlewp}apers are being suspended and suppressed. On all sides it is agreed that never since the (reat Mutiny has the -ituatio(, been so serious. Yet —irony of fate! —the Secretary,f State for India, in the British Cabinet, is John Moryley! Listen again to tle Simla correspondent of the I)aily 'elegraphl 'low\ comles it, mlany will sa!, tliat witll l anlllinistratiiol fra;lled upon suchi excellent lines, tlhere is the opportunity for.evei 1lmalevolent criticism to obtain suclh publicity in tle penin-'lla. To tii there is one sufficient answer. No government hla- ever saved itcelf merely by its,owll virtue and probity. Alexanlder tlhe Just mllet tlhe same fate as leliogabllus, llis pre-,,e(essor, and Maximlin, his successor; and the very liberality witli which w(e have pIermitted tlhe free lubllication and discll-ionll (f politica.l 1heres ies has eeorage(l a1 thioulsanll to 1Ire.a(, li srob(eiel(ce, where,. ul(ler tlhe stlener code of Romle, VeCII,lie1 igIlt hlave.( hezitated to betlray his secret aspirations. '1 'li triiest conlmentary upon our policy in India was written a lhundred years ago by the only European to whom it has ever been given to understand the inmost soul of the native of India. W\\hat is, and miiust remain for us, a sealed book, so far as many of its clhapters are concerned, was read by the Abbe DIubois from cover lo cover, and his final estimate of the necessary relations betweell tle English anld tlie Indian is as true today as when\ it. was written. Of tliat estimate the kernel is contained in the following sentence: 'Under the supremacy of the Brahllllins the people of India hated their government, while they c(lerihlled and respected their rulers; under the supremacy (if ELuropeans tlhey liate and despise their rulers from the bottom of their hearts. lwile they cherish and respect their government. "':' '::' '" I venture to predict that the British will attemlpt in vain to effect any very considerable changes in the (,ciial condition of the people of India. To make a people },l'ppy it is,es —ria tlnat thley tlieniselve, should desire to be nade happy, and should co-opelcrate with thLlle who are wvrking for their happiness. Now tl(e people of India, as it appears to me, neither possess this desire nor are anxious to co-operate to this end. Every reform Awhich is obviollsly devised for their well-being they obstinately push aside, if it is likely in the least degree to (listurb their manner of living, tlheir mo-t al)surdl prejudice, or tlheir most puerile custom.' "If this is as true today as it was a hundred years ago —and it unquestionably is- we need not look far for the causes of any unrest that may exist today. If the inability of the Hindoo to appreciate either the personality or the labors of those who, well or ill, admlinister India is as pronounced as ever, we who, to the best of our ability, have instilled in him tlhe principles of patriotism, citizenship, and co-operation, and lhave, moreover, made hint articulate, need take small blame to ourselves if our work still meets with little appreciation among those for whose sole benefit it is designed." Oh! the blindness of men! (an you nott see, yoll Eniglish, the key to this wonderful secret-tle explanation of this great mystery-of this "inability of the Ilindoo to appreciate" all your wonderful and unselfish devotion. Search your own hearts; and if you find not the answer there, turn to the pages of John Morlcy's Life of (ladstone, and t.here read those golden words of the great statesman who labored to give justice to Ireland: '' It is Liberty alone that fits men for Liberty." "What profiteth it a man if he gain the whole world. and lose his own soul?" You have given to the people of India all the material benefits-security of life and property, justice. and education, freedom of speech and religion, honest administration, roads and bridges;-you have given him everything that can be asked of a governmentt, have you not? All? Yes, everything; —except one thing, except that which is worth a thousand times more than all these put together, that without which all these are as nothing, the one vital thing that makes the difference between the slave and the man-FREEDOM. Can we do more for the Philippines than Great Britain has done for India? No;-and yes. We cannot hope to excel her in excellent administration; for we are a democracy, while England is an imperial aristocracy. but at the end of a term of years we may,perhaps bring about something approaching the efficiency and excellence of the Indian government, and with the same mournful result-a discontented population on the verge of a violent outbreak against its unselfish and wellmeaning oppressors. But we can, if we choose, do more,-mnuch more for the I 'iliptpines: tlanl Enlgland lhas dtlne tl or India': 'e canI lnlakc oulrself their loyal and devoted friend; opening our ports to reciprocal trade; offerilng every help in our power toward hight ideals and higli accomplishment; and giving that most (ethicicnt!elp po-sible- the setting of a great example. 'lThe way to d(1 tllis is to withdraw our arlly and establish iide)pendence; and the tilme to do it is not a century hence, Inor a generation hele, not ten years nor tive, blit 1otr,, straivh t y tcry, th' sooner thle better. Every Imoment of delay is fralught with injustice to the Philippines and danger to ourselves. Thlese are all the arguIments that 1 have ever lheard for keeping tlie lPhilippines; and I have tried to show themn as I believe them to be, one and all inl tlleir essence weak and futile. lut suppose for a mtiom.ent they were valid, suppose that the Philippines can not take care of themselves, and that tile Islands would be grabbed by some nlation suffering from world-hunger; suppose our delparture would result in such disorder tliat the worst of fates, tliat of tile Kilkenny cats, would befall the Filipinos; suppose we grant that without our help the Islands will never be civilized or educated; suppose that untold wvealth is (< 1 if we keep thlemI; suppose any and all of these, wliat then? It would still be our soleii duty to withdraw: for it still reImains true what was said by Bishopr Potter, I tllink, "The real qulestion is not wlat sliall we do with the Philippines, but what will tlie }Philippines do witli us." It is the danger to ourselves tlhat is of nmost importance to us and to the world. Tllis coiintry is a denmocracy;-a fact that is not unfamiliar to m11ost of us; but hIow many there are who fail to appreciate tlhe persolnl respoilsibilities that follow from tlhat fact! How nilani whlo fail to understandl just why we are a democracy; aii(t why, a; a demnocracy, it is impossible for us to play at the saml le time tle part of an 1empire! We may be one or the other-but we can't be both. Many people there are wlo confuse tlhe ideas of a republic and a democracy. IRepublics there have been before ours-the ilmperial republlic of Rome, the aristocratic republic of Venice. tle feudal republic of Switzerland. tile paternalistic repulllic f the Netherlands; but ours is tle first great DEMOCRACY. the first nation founded boldly upon tlhe principle tlat all ien:ire created e(lial-tle political expression of the Golden Rule. For that is what it comes to. Four great systems of Yovernlm ut before ours had been tried in the world and had failed to satisfy mankind. After many separate and crude experiments in government, and many failures, Rome brought all the known world under her imperial suva? ---in the first great or-,ganiizd!-ytCel i 1,, hulan uvcieit and then to oppose the imperial idea there arose-Christianity. Imperialisn rested upon one great basic principle, "M1ight makes Itiyht"; and the hlunan relatins at the base,f that propositilon arc1 ne.es`earily thos-e of master anl1 slave. IBut at the very nmollent of its 'cople+te trillplh, at tllat,lraaltic( ilstant whien the forim of the Rlomian goveri)n'lilit itself had been chlanige(l to suit the fundamental systteml, 1and Augilstiu 'aesar had overthlrownl the republic antl )becomle Imperator; at that momnent was heard tie low, grave voice of the Hebrew Prophet,, lo uinto othfr.s,is i e would that othe.rsj.sho/ld do ulnto you." Thle deathl-knell of imperialisni was given in that sentence. It became at once the touchstone by which all futurie forms of governmilent mulst be tried; and no governmaent 1las ever been able permanently to en(lure, because it could not stand that test. First it was the Imperialism of Rome that fell; tlien it was the Feuldalisnm of Mediaeval Europe; then it was tle Paternalism of tlhe Stilarts or tlhe Bourbons; then tlhe Pseudo-Ilnpeliaiisill (f Napoleon Bonaplate. As one looks through history, o1n after the other the carefully built-up systems of tyranny cruml)le and fall; and upon their ruins, foolish mnain-failinr to see the obvious rock upon which the w'recks h.ave occurred,refusing to recognize:he great truths of the religion lie pr,fesses, tries again, and yet again, to make some new combination that will stand, and perpetuate tile p)ower of privilege. Iniperiali1m, the rule of the strong over the weak-of master over the slave; Feudalism, the rulle of overlord over vassals; Paternalism, the rule of a monarch claiming divine authority over subjects; Aristocracy, the nile of a social caste over the mob; now one and now the other; now a combination of these two and now of those; but always the refusal of the great mai. of the people to be satisfied long with a system which givei special privileges to the favored few; thus denying the vital principle of the rule of life laid down by Jesus. This, then, is the meaning of democracy; a system of government based upon equal justice and equal privilege for all men; the political expression of the Golden Rule. But when this new system of human government was outlined in the great Declaration, and later worked into concrete form in our Federal Constitution, our statesmen did not have clear vision on one vital point. The slavery compromises of the Constitution may have been politically wise as a temporary concession to human weakness; but they were a blot upon a noble instrument and perpetuated in our democracy a relic of imperialisml. And we sutt'fered bitterly for the sin, of lack,f faith in our own political ideal. Lincoln said: "This nation cannot permanently endure half slave and half free." lie was right, and upon analysis it is easy to see why he was right. It was because imperialism and democracy are not onlv different systems of government, but opposing systems of governnent. One is based upon the theory that fl"ight nmakes Right." —the other denies that theory; the one assumes that one nian is entitled to rule another man without his consent, the other says that all men are created equal and that governments exist only for the sake of the governed; the one denies the Golden Rule, the other affirms it. How can they exist together. As well may fire and water meet in harmony! But if this is trle lf tlhe individual, it is also true of the nation. If our democracy could not exist in combination witl one form of imperialisml, neither can it exist with the other. You can ha\ve an imperial repulllic. but you cannot have an imperial democracy. If slavery —the rlle of onl e an of ver another-was a denial of the Golden Rule, a negation of demlocrac'; so is the rulee of one nation over another. And as Lincoln truly said that this nation could not endure half slave and half free, so we can truly say that thiNation ( cannot endure a democracy at home and an empire abroad. I have been told that I cannot form a proper judglment of this I'hilippine, matter 1beca)se I have not visited the Islands. That we must go to Manila and see the splendid work that our Tafts, our W rights, and our Forbeses have done, and are doing, before we can properly make up our minds; and that in the meantime wc must accept the judgment of those who know from practical observation. But I have often found that those who are in the thick of things are often the poorest judges; and, moreover, there are some things that we (an know perfectly well without seeing. The greates, and most important truths arc those of which no.:lclar'p^ooa au,be had. We do not need to journey to Manila to understand the Teni"Commandments. It is the same old story. Hosea Biglow says: "Parson Wilbur he calls all these argimunts lies; Sez they're nothin' on airth but jest fee, faw, t/m'n: An' thet all this big talk of our destinies Is half on it in'rncrll', an' t'other half rnm." Parson Wilbur was not quite right, unless he included a great many things under the name of "ignorance"; but it ig eertainly true that the Imperialists must always fall back upon John P. Robinson's argument, that "They didn't know everythin' down in Judee." We are trying out, in this country, a new systemr of government-Democracy. We have not beenI long at it, as the world moves. We have had splendid results, and we have survived at least one deadly peril. We have problems before us worthy for any number of intellects to solve; but we cannot solve them, we cannot succeed, we can never retain our proper place in the world's history unless we keep our democracy pure and unsullied; keep our faith in the splendid results of individual and national freedom; unless we keep on believing that "It is liberty alone that fits men for liberty." And above all we must make our deeds square with our professions. We must yield to others the liberty we claim as our own God-givea right. Brethren of the faith, be not discouraged, our cause is neither dead nor dying; the way may be long, but the end is sure. Imperialism, like slavery, is the negation of democracy, and it will not endure. We must take our stand boldly upon the teachings of Jesus. If he was right in his enunciation of the Golden Rule then all the apologists of tyranny and bloodshed are plainly and tragically wrong. If they are right-if the denial of freed(om can be compensate( for by good roads, by bridges and harbors and all the luxuries of efficient government —then is the message of Jesus a mistake, the Golden Rule an ilmpracticable doctrine, and the Christian religion, that we profess, a hideous failure. But we know that is not true. We know that with Him, to whom a thousand years are but as a day, there will and can be no permanent backward turning: That the hearts of men will be ope!ned to the truth at last. Lowell-our truest poet of democracy, has sung: "Careless seems the great Avenger;!history's pages but record One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old sytems and the Word; Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forexcr on tl* firgne,Yet that scaffold sways the future, aidi. behihil 'tlie dimn anknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own. We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great, Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate, But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within.'They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin.'" Il1 l111 I II 111i 3 9015 01167 3806 SOUNU THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GRADUATE LIBRARY DATE DUE EC~^ - ' - \ 1A - "S JAi':3',791 UL o 8 987 d^c.?0p9j V,,rm <l-,A4 I