,,J                  I
 7_ 1' "I - ! 1,..;.7 -
I,   -"  )I 1               /";{


A"To
THE 'CLERGY                  TW
AND
THE   CONQTYA6T   OF THE    PHILIPPINES.
(rm the Oakland Enquirer, April 25, 1i93.]_
EIOR ENQUIRER:The Palm Sunday sermon of Rev. Charles R. Brown
ofthe First Congregational Church of thie city has been
pitdin pamphlet, form by Mr. Valentine for general
cruaion. It is such a timdely contribution to the disasoaof the most important question before the AmeniPanpople since the settlement of the qu~stion of African
p vry.-*t I take the liberty of calling the attention of
our itraders to it.
n F alm Sunday Mr. Brown read from one of the
gos.pels 'the account of Christ's entry into Jerusailem ridFang- upon 'the humblest of. the -beasts, of burden, and,,then, in The sermon, hie. contrasted/ this entry of the
~-Prince 'of Pi ace into the City of Zion (with the procession
f,of ImperialAm -with its legions of soldiers, led by generals riding upon their splendid war chargers, 'while the
-populave shoutthemselves- hoarse in' loud acclaim. He
then made his hesarers realize' that ths modern 'triumph
of force is tr amnpling under foot the b~dies of men, women,
and children, wh-o, though 'dark of skin, humble of
attainments, and,ivthout the blessin'gs of ihe Protestant
religion, are yet human beings, created by the- Father of


/
NEW YOIR
IC LIBRARY
RLePAsi
(
-I  




all, and endowed by I~im with the right to life, liberty"and happiness.
Mr. LEljtor, as an Ai-erinan citizen, and aiwell-wisbei
of the Church, I am dvlighted that there are some minis!i
ters of the Gospel 6f Peace who;ee, and have the cour1
agre to poinit out, that Christ taught cefnr~srVnera1 truth.0
inherent in the very constitution of things, thajt arei
Litterkv at vatiance with all notions of conquest
depriving otl~ers, however humble or degraded, of th~At
wh~ich istiers
Oa kla nd has two clerovmen at least who have lifted
uip their voices in protest against the wickedness of,
propagating the Gosp'l] or adding to the domain of our 1
liopulvie, by invading a foreign land and killing those of
its inhabitants who re!~ist.  Tbe salt has not lost all its
S:iVor. litt when. we-see the majority of our PyotestA
Christian ministers coining to the front as the' louCi
advocates of conquest by arms of the Filipinos, is 'It~
_wonder the Church has lost so much of its hold upon the
peop1e?  The -voice of these ministerial non-corabatants
is for a war of conquest. They know not what.. they do.
I1 served from the be~ginning to the end of our 'four
yea rirs' war, and wvishi these mien could see- a li'ttle of what
rmy eyes have seen, or what otir soldiers in': the Philip.
pities are n-~wi seeing.  War is hell, hell so des-p atid
damnable that every thiinking man shoulj4 protest against
it as a means of spre'sding this Gospel, orisenlarging trade.
It is a most accurseh engine for the rb'oral ruin of the
conquieror, and the moral and physic~tl ruin of the conq uered.
2


\,,2


I




No violation of the truths taught by the Muster can go
unpunished. The reason is, because they are truths of
the very fabric of human relations.  ' Do unto others
as you would have them do unto you," ' Love your neighbor as yourself." You must not kill, nor rob, nor steal,
nor even covet your neighbor's goods. These are principles at the very foundation of things. How dan these
principles accord with our treatment of the Filipinos?
He who by any sophistry, or by calling attention to the
advantage to be obtained, induces the doing anything in
violation of these basic principles, makes a dreadful
mistake. It reacts on himself and upon those whom he
has persuaded. The punishment is sure to be in proportion to the extent or magnitude of the violation of these
all-pervasive principles.
When will the American people have fully atoned for
the sin of slavery? The war which crushed it ended
more than thirty years ago, but we are still suffering
from it. I am old enough to remember the time when
African slavery in this country was viewed either with
indifference or approval by ninety-nine out of a hundred
of our population. I remember when its opponents were
few in numbers and were the detestation of the great
body of the American people. As they lifted up their
voices in protest against the institution inherited from
their ancestors and woven into our social and political
relations, how the mob denounced them; how clearly
statesmen showed that the views of these -abolitionists
were subversive of government, and that stark ruin
would follow such unseasonable agitation; how business
3




men, with special bitterness, deekred they ought to be
suppressed as common enemies; and how professors in
colleges and political economists philosophically disposed
of their arguments!
I remember well the stand taken by the clergy and the
Church generally. There was no sophistry that so effectually hindered the growth of sentiment against slavery,
especially among business men, as that put forth by men
from professedly Christian pulpits. There were, undubtt dly, cranks among the abolitionists who made
themselves and their views obnnxious to many. But
there were among them enough, to at least rouse attention,
of noble, cl ar-headed men and women, who believed that
the truths taught by Jests were eternal, all-pervasiive,
and as applicable to the affairs of 'men in the nine teenth
century as when they were first uttered. No logic of the
school men, no argument of the stntesmen, no expounding of Scripture by the clergy, no denunciation by business men, could silence their protest against our people
taking from another their liberty or their property. And
what was the result? Who prevailed finally? But,
thou;h sliv. ry was crushed, we are still paying for the
sins olf our faithers.
Thii generation will not see the end of the troubles incurred byvour unwarranted conquest of the Phililpines.
If we violate the all-pervasive principle that justice must
be done to all, white or black, or that an aggregation of.
men, or a nation any more than an individual, cannot
take away from another life, or liberty, or pro(pert, except as a penalty for crime, the offender must suffer as
4




well as the victim. There is no di'ference in principle
between killing or robbing a Filipino or a negro and
the killing or robbing of a white man. In either case, it
is a crime. The black or brown man has just as much
right to his country and to its political control as we
have to ours. His country can no more be bought or
sold without his consent than can ours without our consent. When a strong, enlightened nation conquers a
weak and ignorant one in order to propagate the religion, or to enlarge the trade of the stronger, a colossal
crime is committed.
I am so much reminded by the arguments made in
support of our conduct in the East of the arguments
heard in my youth in support of slavery, advanced
especially by clergymen and business men, that I feel
sure of seeing the same results when the awakening
comes,-and the awakening will come.
General Shafter recognizes that the Filipinos are making a vigorous fight for their freedom, but he says we
must go ahead, though "it may be necessary to kill
half the population of the islands in order that the
remaining half may be lifted from their semi barbarity
to the civilization we are ready to give them."
I have not before heard of any responsible person making a statement of the expansionist's theory with such
brutal frankness, but there is no substantial difference in
principle between General Shafter's statement of the
proper thing for the American people to do and the
deliverances of many popular ministers. The Bulletin
the other day printed a portion of a paper read by a




most excellent and distinguished Oakland minister before the Presbyterian Ministerial Association, and I am
told that a large majority of the ministers present were
in hearty accord with the views expressed. The reverend gentleman does not state in express terms his belief
in the propriety of butchering fifty per cent. of the Filipinos if necessary in order to control the remainder, but
his arguments lead to the same conclusion. He assumes
we have the right to take possession of these people and
their country in order to expand our trade and lift them
into a higher civilization. He says: "I believe the retention of the Philippines is our duty, at least until they
acquire the ability to govern themselves."  Who gave
us the right to take possession of them, and by what
right, having obtained possession, do we still retain it
against their will? We have captured their principal
city by force, and now we must conquer the remainder
of their country in order to retain possession.
How does he know they cannot govern themselves
now? My neighbor may be making wretched use of his
property, or of his political freedom, but shall I deprive
him of either? Who made me his judge? Shall one people judge another, and because the stronger and the more
enlightened are of opinion that the weaker and the more
ignorant cannot properly govern themselves step in and
arrogate that right?
He says the interests of trade require we should have
these islands. But the people of these islands object,
and we cannot obtain them without slaughtering a large
portion of the inhabitants, burning their homes, and
6




turning these islands into a hell; but yet he says he is in
favor of taking and keeping them because " immense
markets in the East mean help and comfort and better
living for our toiling millions at home." The highwayman justifies himself by the same plea. Shall a civilized
people defend its aggressions upon the liberty of another
because of the advantage to be obtained by doing so?
Has it become necessary,' in order to feed our toiling
millions at home, that we take forcible possession of the
Philippine Islands, and as their inhabitants resist, kill
them off? Is that Christianity? No, a thousand times,
no. There is nothing to be found in anything that
Christ said or did justifying any such conduct on our
part.
One of the most eminent of our professors at the State
University joins with a majority of the ministers in supporting our war of conquest. But his well-trained, logical mind sees that this is in conflict with the basic principle upon which this republic rests, and also in conflict
with the Golden Rule. Hence he declares, in discussing
this subject, that the proposition that governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed is
not true, and -that the same rules of mordlity  do not
apply to a nation that apply to individuals.
He sees clearly that our conduct towards the Filipinos
is utterly indefensible, if he concedes the premises supposed to be at the foundation of our political institutions,
and the basis of proper relations between individual
men. Therefore, as a trained logician, he repudiates the
premises. That is bad enough, Heaven knows, but no
7




mischief is done by such teaching, for when a matter is
put so plainly, the average normal man or woman revolts
at once. But when ministers of the Gospel who have
the confidence of their cJngregations declare the hand of
Providence is leading the way to spread the blessings of
Christianity and increase our trade, the consciences of
their hearers are dulled, and the mischief is incalculable.
Do you suppose, Mr. Editor, that if the clergy of our
country had, for the last year, expounded from the pulpit
that the teachings of the Master they follow should be
applied to the treatment by our nation of the Filipinos,
there would have been a war with that unhappy people,
with its accompaniment of " shooting them like rabbits,"
and the burning of their humble homes? It is not too.
late to undo, in part, the wrong that has been done, and
let us hope that the remonstrances that have been so well
expressed by a Sunderland and a Brown of the Oakland
ministry will be listened to. Of one thing we may be
sure, and that is, that if the passion of greed and conquest prevails, it will only be for a time. It is a question
of morals that is involved, and sooner or later, justice and
right will prevail with our people. The most of us will
live to see the American people bitterly repenting the
violations, during the last year, of the basic principles of
human society.
WARREN OLNEY.
April 24, 1899.


/
k`