"Imperialism"

AND

"The Tracks of Our Forefathers"

A PAPER READ BY

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS

_Before the Lexington, Massachusetts, Historical Society_

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1898

"In a word, many wise men thought it a time wherein those two miserableadjuncts, which Nerva was deified for uniting, _imperium et libertas_, wereas well reconciled as is possible. "--_Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, B. 1. § 163. _

"I put my foot in the tracks of our forefathers, where I can neither wandernor stumble. "--_Burke's Speech on Conciliation with America. _

BOSTONDANA ESTES & COMPANY210 SUMMER STREET1899

"IMPERIALISM"

AND

"THE TRACKS OF OUR FOREFATHERS. "

What the feast of the Passover was to the children of Israel, that thedays between the nineteenth of December and the fourth of January--theYuletide--are and will remain to the people of New England. The Passoverbegan "in the first month on the fourteenth day of the month at even, "and it lasted one week, "until the one and twentieth day of the month ateven. " It was the period of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, and thefeast of unleavened bread; and of it as a commemoration it is written, "When your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, whopassed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smotethe Egyptians. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dweltin Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. " And thus, by their yearlyPassover, were the Jewish congregations of old put in mind what farewellthey took of the land of Egypt. 

So our own earliest records tell us that it was on the morning ofSaturday, of what is now the nineteenth of December, that the littleexploring party from the _Mayflower_, then lying at her anchor inProvincetown Harbor, after a day and night of much trouble and danger, sorely buffeted by wind and wave in rough New England's December seas, found themselves on an island in Plymouth Bay. It was a mild, "fairesunshining day. And this being the last day of the weeke, they preparedther to keepe the Sabath. On Munday they sounded the harbor, and marchedinto the land, and found a place fitt for situation. So they returned totheir shipp againe [at Provincetown] with this news. On the twenty-fifthof December they weyed anchor to goe to the place they had discovered, and came within two leagues of it, but were faine to bear up againe; butthe twenty-sixth day, the winde came faire, and they arrived safe inthis harbor. And after wards tooke better view of the place, andresolved wher to pitch their dwelling; and the fourth day [of January]begane to erecte the first house for commone use to receive them andtheir goods. " Such, in the quaint language of Bradford, is the calendarof New England's Passover; and, beginning on the nineteenth of December, it ends on the fourth of January, covering as nearly as may be theChristmas holyday period. 

Is there any better use to which the Passover anniversary can be putthan to retrospection? "And when your children shall say unto you, Whatmean you by this service? ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of theLord's passover, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. "So the old story is told again, being thus kept ever green in memory;and, in telling it, the experiences of the past are brought insensiblyto bear on the conditions of the present. Thus, once a year, like theIsraelites of old, we, as a people, may take our bearings and verify ourcourse, as we plunge on out of the infinite past into the unknowablefuture. It is a useful practice; and we are here this first evening ofour Passover period to observe it. 

This, too, is an Historical Society, --that of Lexington, "a name, " as, when arraigned before the tribunal of the French Terror, Danton said ofhis own, "tolerably known in the Revolution;" and I am invited toaddress you because I am President of the Massachusetts HistoricalSociety, the most venerable organization of the sort in America, perhapsin the world. Thus, to-night, though we shall necessarily have to touchon topics of the day, and topics exciting the liveliest interest andmost active discussion, we will in so doing look at them, --not aspoliticians or as partisans, nor from the commercial or religious side, but solely from the historical point of view. We shall judge of thepresent in its relations to the past. And, unquestionably, there isgreat satisfaction to be derived from so doing; the mere effort seems atonce to take us into another atmosphere, --an atmosphere as foreign tounctuous cant as it is to what is vulgarly known as "electioneeringtaffy. " This evening we pass away from the noisy and heated turmoil ofpartisan politics, with its appeals to prejudice, passion, and materialinterest, into the cool of a quiet academic discussion. It is like goingout of some turbulent caucus, or exciting ward-room debate, and findingoneself suddenly confronted by the cold, clear light of the Decembermoon, shining amid the silence of innumerable stars. 

Addressing ourselves, therefore, to the subject in hand, the question atonce suggests itself, --What year in recent times has been in a large waymore noteworthy and impressive, when looked at from the purelyhistorical point of view, than this year of which we are now observingthe close? The first Passover of the Israelites ended a drama of morethan four centuries' duration, for "the sojourning of the children ofIsrael, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years; and atthe end of the four hundred and thirty years all the hosts of the Lordwent out from the land of Egypt. " So the Passover we now celebratecommemorates the closing of another world drama of almost precisely thesame length, and one of deepest significance, as well as unsurpassedhistoric interest. These world dramas are lengthy affairs; for, while wemen are always in a hurry, the Almighty never is: on the contrary, asthe Psalmist observed, so now, "a thousand years in his sight are but asyesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. " The drama Ihave referred to as this week brought to its close, is that known inhistory as Spanish Domination in America. It began, as we all know, onthe twenty-first of October, 1492; it has been continuous through sixyears over four centuries. It now passes into history; the verdict maybe made up. 

So far as I personally am concerned, --a matter needless to say of verytrifling consequence, --this verdict was rendered a year ago. It wassomewhat Rhadamanthine; but a twelve-month of further reflection hasshown no cause in any respect to revise it. In referring to what wasthen plainly impending, in December, 1897, before the blowing up of thebattleship _Maine_, before a conflict had become inevitable, I used thislanguage in a paper read to the Massachusetts Historical Society: "Whenlooking at the vicissitudes of human development, we are apt to assume acertain air of optimism, and take advancement as the law of being, as athing of course, indisputable. We are charitable, too; and to deny toany given race or people some degree of use in the economy of Nature, orthe plan of Creation, is usually regarded as indicative of narrowness ofview. The fatal, final word "pessimist" is apt to be whispered inconnection with the name of one who ventures to suggest a doubt of thisphase of the doctrine known as Universalism. And yet, at this time when, before our eyes, it is breathing its last, I want some one to point outa single good thing in law, or science, or art, or literature, --material, moral or intellectual, --which has resulted to the race of man upon earthfrom Spanish domination in America. I have tried to think of one invain. It certainly has not yielded an immortality, an idea, or adiscovery; it has, in fact, been one long record of reaction andretrogression, than which few pages in the record of mankind have beenmore discouraging or less fruitful of good. What is now taking place inCuba is historical. It is the dying out of a dominion, the influence ofwhich will be seen and felt for centuries in the life of two continents;just as what is taking place in Turkey is the last fierce flickering upof Asiatic rule in Europe, on the very spot where twenty-four centuriesago Asiatic rule in Europe was thought to have been averted forever. Thetwo, Ottoman rule in Europe, and Spanish rule in America, now stand atthe bar of history; and, scanning the long four-century record of each, I have been unable to see what either has contributed to the accumulatedpossessions of the human race, or why both should not be classed amongthe many instances of the arrested civilization of a race, developing bydegrees an irresistible tendency to retrogression. "

This, one year ago; and while the embers of the last Greco-Turkishstruggle, still white, were scarcely cold on the plain of Marathon. Thetime since passed has yielded fresh proof in support of this harshjudgment; for, if there is one historical law better and moreirreversibly established than another, it is that, in the case ofnations even more than in the case of individuals, their sins will findthem out, --the day of reckoning may not be escaped. Noticeably, hasthis proved so in the case of Spain. The year 1500 may be said to havefound that country at the apex of her greatness. America had then beennewly discovered; the Moor was just subdued. Nearly half a centurybefore (1453) the Roman Empire had fallen, and, with the storming ofConstantinople by the Saracens, disappeared from the earth. That event, it may be mentioned in passing, closed another world drama continuousthrough twenty-two centuries, --upon the whole the most wonderful of theseries. And so, when Roman empire vanished, that of Spain began. It wasushered in by the landfall of Columbus; and when, just three hundredyears later, in 1792, the subject was discussed in connection with itsthird centennial, the general verdict of European thinkers was that thediscovery of America had, upon the whole, been to mankind the reverse ofbeneficent. This conclusion has since been commented upon with derision;yet, when made, it was right. The United States had in 1792 juststruggled into existence, and its influence on the course of humanevents had not begun to make itself felt. Those who considered thesubject had before them, therefore, only Spanish domination in America, and upon that their verdict cannot be gainsaid; for, from the year 1492down, the history of Spain and Spanish domination has undeniably beenone long series of crimes and violations of natural law, the penalty forwhich has not apparently even yet been exacted in full. 

Of those national crimes four stand out in special prominence, constituting counts in a national indictment than which history showsfew more formidable. These four were: (1) The expulsion, first, of theJews, and then of the Moors, or Moriscoes, from Spain, late in thefifteenth and early in the sixteenth centuries; (2) the annals of "theCouncil of Blood" in the Netherlands, and the eighty years ofinternecine warfare through which Holland fought its way out from underSpanish rule; (3) the Inquisition, the most ingenious human machineryever invented to root out and destroy whatever a people had that wasintellectually most alert, inquisitive, and progressive; and, finally(4), the policy of extermination, and, where not of extermination, ofcruel oppression, systematically pursued towards the aborigines ofAmerica. Into the grounds on which the different counts of thisindictment rest it would be impossible now to enter. Were it desirableso to do, time would not permit. Suffice it to say, the penalty had tobe paid to the uttermost farthing; and one large instalment fell due, and was mercilessly exacted, during the year now drawing to its close. Spanish domination in America ceased, --the drama ended as it wasentering on its fifth century, --and it can best be dismissed with thesolemn words of Abraham Lincoln, uttered more than thirty years ago, when contemplating a similar expiation we were ourselves paying in bloodand grief for a not dissimilar violation of an everlasting law, --"Yet, if God wills that this mighty scourge continue until all the wealthpiled by the bondsmen's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toilshall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall bepaid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand yearsago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true andrighteous altogether!'"

But not only is this year memorable as witnessing the downfall andcomplete extirpation of that Spanish rule in America which began withColumbus, but the result, when it at last came about, was marked byincidents more curiously fitting and dramatic than it would have beenpossible for a Shakspeare to have conceived. Columbus, as we all know, stumbled, as it were, on America as he sailed west in search ofAsia, --Cipango he was looking for, and he found Cuba. It is equally wellknown that he never discovered his mistake. When fourteen years later hedied, it was in the faith that, through him, Europe had by a westwardmovement established itself in the archipelagoes of Asia. And now, atlast, four centuries afterward, the blow which did most to end theAmerican domination he established was struck in Asiatic waters; and, through it and the descendants of another race, America seems on thethreshold of realizing the mistaken belief of Columbus, and by awestward movement establishing the European in that very archipelagoColumbus failed to reach. The ways of Providence are certainly not lesssingular than slow in movement. 

But the year just ending was veritably one of surprises, --for thehistorical student it would, indeed, seem as if 1898 was destined topass into the long record as almost the Year of Surprises. We now cometo the consideration of some of these wholly unanticipated results fromthe American point of view. And in entering on this aspect of thequestion, it is necessary once more to remind you that we are doing itin the historical spirit, and from the historical point of view. We arestating facts not supposed to admit of denial. The argument andinferences to be drawn from those facts do not belong to this occasion. Some will reach one conclusion as to the future, and the bearing thosefacts have upon its probable development, and some will reach anotherconclusion; with these conclusions we have nothing to do. Our businessis exclusively with the facts. 

Speaking largely, but still with all necessary historical accuracy, America has been peopled, and its development, up to the present time, worked out through two great stocks of the European family, --theSpanish-speaking stock, and the English-speaking stock. In theirdevelopment these two have pursued lines, clearly marked, but curiouslydivergent. Leaving the Spanish-speaking branch out of the discussion, asunnecessary to it, it may without exaggeration be said of theEnglish-speaking branch that, from the beginning down to this year nowending, its development has been one long protest against, anddivergence from, Old World methods and ideals. In the case of thosedescended from the Forefathers, --as we always designate the Plymouthcolony, --this has been most distinctly marked, ethnically, politically, industrially. 

America was the sphere where the European, as a colonist, a settler, first came on a large scale in contact with another race. Heretofore, inthe Old World, when one stock had overrun another, --and historypresented many examples of it, --the invading stock, after subduing, andto a great extent driving out, the stock which had preceded in theoccupancy of a region, settled gradually down into a common possession, and, in the slow process of years, an amalgamation of stocks, more orless complete, took place. In America, with the Anglo-Saxon, andespecially those of the New England type, this was not the case. Unlikethe Frenchman at the north, or the Spaniard at the south, theAnglo-Saxon showed no disposition to ally himself with theaborigines, --he evinced no faculty of dealing with inferior races, asthey are called, except through a process of extermination. Here inMassachusetts this was so from the outset. Nearly every one here hasread Longfellow's poem, "The Courtship of Miles Standish, " and calls tomind the short, sharp conflict between the Plymouth captain and theIndian chief, Pecksuot, and how those God-fearing Pilgrims ruthlesslyput to death by stabbing and hanging a sufficient number of the alreadyplague-stricken and dying aborigines. That episode occurred in April, 1623, only a little more than two years after the landing we to-nightcelebrate, and was, so far as New England is concerned, the beginning ofa series of wars which did not end until the Indian ceased to be anelement in our civilization. When John Robinson, the revered pastor ofthe Plymouth church, received tidings at Leyden of that killing nearPlymouth, --for Robinson never got across the Atlantic, --he wrote: "Oh, how happy a thing had it been, if you had converted some before you hadkilled any! There is cause to fear that, by occasion, especially ofprovocation, there may be wanting that tenderness of the life of man(made after God's image) which is meet. It is also a thing more gloriousin men's eyes, than pleasing in God's or convenient for Christians, tobe a terror to poor, barbarous people. " This all has a very familiarsound. It is the refrain of nearly three centuries; but, as anhistorical fact, it is undeniable that, from 1623 down to the year nowending, the American Anglo-Saxon has in his dealings with what are knownas the "inferior races" lacked "that tenderness of the life of man whichis meet, " and he has made himself "a terror to poor, barbarous people. "How we of Massachusetts carried ourselves towards the aborigines here, the fearful record of the Pequot war remains everlastingly to tell. Howthe country at large has carried itself in turn towards Indian, African, and Asiatic is matter of history. And yet it is equally matter ofhistory that this carriage, term it what you will, --unchristian, brutal, exterminating, --has been the salvation of the race. It has saved theAnglo-Saxon stock from being a nation of half-breeds, --miscegenates, tocoin a word expressive of an idea. The Canadian half-breed, theMexican, the mulatto, say what men may, are not virile or enduringraces; and that the Anglo-Saxon is none of these, and is essentiallyvirile and enduring, is due to the fact that the less developed racesperished before him. Nature is undeniably often brutal in its methods. 

Again, and on the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon when he came to Americaleft behind him, so far as he himself was concerned, feudalism and allthings pertaining to caste, including what was then known in England, and is still known in Germany, as Divine Right. When he at lastenunciated his political faith he put in the forefront of hisdeclaration as "self-evident truths, " the principles "that all men arecreated equal;" that they are endowed with "certain inalienable rights, "among them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and thatgovernments derived "their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. " Now what was meant here by the phrase "all men are createdequal?" We know they are not. They are not created equal in physical ormental endowment; nor are they created with equal opportunity. The worldbristles with inequalities, natural and artificial. This is so; and yetthe declaration is none the less true;--true when made; true now; truefor all future time. The reference was to the inequalities which alwayshad marked, then did, and still do, mark, the political life of the OldWorld, --to Caste, Divine Right, Privilege. It declared that all men werecreated equal before the law, as before the Lord;[1] and that, whetherEuropean, American, Asiatic, or African, they were endowed with aninalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And tothis truth, as he saw it, Lincoln referred in those memorable words Ihave already cited bearing on our national crime in long forgetfulnessof our own immutable principles. The fundamental, primal principle wasindeed more clearly voiced by Lincoln than it has been voiced before, orsince, in declaring again, and elsewhere that to our nation, dedicated"to the proposition that all men are created equal, " has by Providencebeen assigned the momentous task of "testing whether any nation soconceived and so dedicated can long endure, " and "that government of thepeople, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "

The next cardinal principle in our policy as a race--that instinctivepolicy I have already referred to as divergent from Old World methodsand ideals--was most dearly enunciated by Washington in his FarewellAddress, that "the great rule for us in regard to foreign nations is, inextending our commercial relations, to have with them as littlepolitical connection as possible;" that it was "unwise in us toimplicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of[Old World] policies, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of herfriendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites andenables us to pursue a different course. . . . Taking care always to keepourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinaryemergencies. "

Accepting this as firm ground from which to act, we afterwards put forthwhat is known as the Monroe Doctrine. Having announced that our purposewas, in homely language, to mind our own business, we warned the outerworld that we did not propose to permit by that outer world anyinterference in what did not concern it. America was our field, --a fieldamply large for our development. It was therefore declared that, whilewe had never taken any part, nor did it comport with our policy to doso, in the wars of European politics, with the movements in thishemisphere we are, of necessity, more intimately connected. "We owe it, therefore, to candor to declare that we should consider any attempt [onthe part of European powers] to extend their system to any portion ofthis hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. "

On these principles of government and of foreign policy we have as a peoplenow acted for more than seventy years. They have been exemplified anddeveloped in various directions, and resulted in details--commercial, economic, and ethnic--which have given rise to political issues, long andhotly contested, but which, in their result from the purely historicalpoint of view, do not admit of dispute. Commercially, we have adopted whatis known as a system protective both of our industries and our labor. Economically, we have carefully eschewed large and costly armaments, andexpensive governmental methods. Ethnically, we have avowed our desire tohave as little contact as possible with less developed races, lamenting thepresence of the African, and severely excluding the Asiatic. These facts, whether we as individuals and citizens wholly approve--or do not approve atall--of the course pursued and the results reached, admit of no dispute. Neither can it be denied that our attitude, whether it in all respectscommanded the respect of foreign nations, or failed to command it, wasaccepted, and has prevailed. Striking illustrations of this at once suggestthemselves. 

In one respect especially was our attitude peculiar, and in itspeculiarity we took great pride. It was largely moral; but, thoughlargely moral, it had behind it the consciousness of strength inourselves, and its recognition by others. In great degree, andrelatively, an unarmed people, we looked with amaze, which had in itsomething of amusement, at the constantly growing armaments and warbudgets of the nations of Europe. We saw them, like the warriors of themiddle ages, crushed under the weight of their weapons of offence, andtheir preparations for defence. Meanwhile, fortunate in our geographicalposition, --weak for offence, but, in turn, unassailable, --we went in andout much as an unarmed man, relying on his character, his recognizedforce, position, and peaceful calling, daily moves about in our frontiersettlements and mining camps amid throngs of men armed to the teeth withrevolvers and bowie knives. Yet, evidence was not lacking of theconsideration yielded to us when we were called upon, or felt calledupon, to assert ourselves. I will not refer to the episode of 1866, when, in accordance with the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, weintimated to France that her immediate withdrawal from Mexico wasdesired; for then we had not laid down the arms we had taken up in theRebellion. But, without remonstrance even, France withdrew. In 1891, under circumstances not without grounds of aggravation against us, a mobin Valparaiso assaulted some seamen from our ships of war. Instantapology and redress were demanded; and the demand was complied with. Yetlater, the course pursued by us in the Venezuela matter is too fresh inmemory to call for more than a reference. These are all matters ofhistory. When did our word fail to carry all desired weight?

Such were our standing, our traditional policy, and our record at thebeginning of the year now ending. No proposition advanced admits, it isbelieved, of dispute historically. Into the events of the year 1898 itis not necessary to enter in any detail. They are in the minds of all. It is sufficient to say that the primary object for which we enteredupon the late war with Spain was to bring to an end the long andaltogether bad record of Spanish rule in America. In taking the stepsdeemed necessary to effect this result, Congress went out of its way, and publicly and formally put upon record its disclaimer of anyintention to enter upon a war of conquest, asserting its determination, when Spanish domination was ended, to leave the government of Cuba, andpresumably of any other islands similarly acquired, to the peoplethereof. As an incident to our naval operations on the Pacific, theisland of Hawaii was then annexed to the United States as anextra-territorial possession, or coaling station, this being effected bya joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, under the precedent of1845 established in the case of Texas, --a method of procedure theconstitutionality of which was at the time formally called in questionby the State of Massachusetts, and against which Mr. Webster madevigorous protest in the Senate. In thus possessing ourselves of Hawaii, the consent of the native inhabitants was not considered necessary; wedealt wholly with an oligarchical _de facto_ government, representingthe foreign element, mainly American, there resident. 

Shortly after the acquisition of Hawaii, we, as the result of brilliantnaval operations and successes, acquired possession of the harbor ofManila, in the Philippine archipelago, and finally the city and someadjacent territory were surrendered to us. A treaty was then negotiated, the power of Spain being completely broken, under which she abandonedall claims of sovereignty, not only over the island of Cuba, theoriginal cause of war, but over various other islands in the Philippine, as well as in the West Indian, archipelagoes. These islands, in all saidto be some 1, 200 to 1, 500 in number, are moreover not only inhabited byboth natives and foreigners to the estimated number of ten to twelvemillion of souls, but they contain large cities and communities speakingdifferent tongues, living under other laws, and having customs, manners, and traditions wholly unlike our own, and which, in the case of thePhilippines, do not admit of assimilation. Situated in the tropics also, they cannot gradually become colonized by Americans, with or without thedisappearance of the native population. The American can only go therefor temporary residence. 

A wholly new problem was thus suddenly presented to the people of theUnited States. On the one hand, it is asserted that, by destroyingSpanish government in these islands, the United States has assumedresponsibility for them, both to the inhabitants and to the world. Thisis a moral obligation. On the other hand, trade and commercialinducements are held out which would lead us to treat these islandssimply as a commencement--the first instalment--in a system of unlimitedextra-territorial dependencies and imperial expansion. With theseresponsibilities and obligations we here this evening have nothing todo, any more than we have to do with the expediency or probable resultsof the policy of colonial expansion, when once fairly adopted andfinally entered upon. These hereafter will be, but are not yet, historical questions; and we are merely historical inquirers. We, therefore, no matter what others may do, must try to confine ourselvesto our own proper business and functions. 

My purpose, therefore, is not to argue for or against what is nowproposed, but simply to test historically some of the arguments I haveheard most commonly advanced in favor of the proposed policy ofexpansion, and thus see to what they apparently lead in the sequence ofhuman, and more especially of American, events. Do they indicate anhistoric continuity? Or do they result in what is geologically known asa "fault, "--a movement, as the result of force, through which a stratum, once continuous, becomes disconnected?

In the first place, then, as respects the inhabitants of the vastlygreater number of the dependencies already acquired, and, under thepolicy of imperialistic expansion, hereafter to be acquired. It isargued that we, as a people at once dominant and Christian, are under anobligation to avail ourselves of the opportunity the Almighty, in hisinfinite wisdom, has thrust upon us, --some say the plain call he hasuttered to us, --to go forth, and impart to the barbarian and the heathenthe blessings of liberty and the Bible. A mission is imposed upon us. Viewed in the cold, pitiless light of history, --and that is the only waywe here can view them, --"divine missions" and "providential calls" arequestionable things; things the assumption and fulfilment of which areapt to be at variance. So far as the American is concerned, as I havealready pointed out, the historic precedents are not encouraging. Whatever his theories, ethnical, political, or religious, his practicehas been as pronounced as it was masterful. From the earliest days atWessagusset and in the Pequot war, down to the very last election heldin North Carolina, --from 1623 to 1898, --the knife and the shotgun havebeen far more potent and active instruments in his dealings with theinferior races than the code of liberty or the output of the BibleSociety. The record speaks for itself. So far as the Indian isconcerned, the story has been told by Mrs. Jackson in her earnest, eloquent protest, entitled "A Century of Dishonor. " It has receivedepigrammatic treatment in the saying tersely enunciated by one of ourmilitary commanders, and avowedly accepted by the others, that "the onlygood Indian is a dead Indian. " So far as the African is concerned, thesimilar apothegm once was that "the black man has no rights the whiteman is bound to respect;" or, as Stephen A. Douglas defined his positionbefore an applauding audience, "I am for the white man as against theblack man, and for the black man against the alligator. " Recent lynchingand shotgun experiences, too fresh in memory to call for reminder, andtoo painful in detail to describe, give us at least reason to pausebefore we leave our own hearthstone to seek new and distant fields formissionary labors. It remains to consider the Asiatic. The racialantipathy of the American towards him has been more intense than towardsany other species of the human race. This, as an historical fact, hasbeen recently imbedded in our statute-book, having previously beenillustrated in a series of outrages and massacres, with the sickeningdetails of some of which it was at one time my misfortune to beofficially familiar. Under these circumstances, so far as thecirculation of the Bible and the extension of the blessings of libertyare concerned, history affords small encouragement to the American toassume new obligations. He has been, and now is, more than merelydelinquent in the fulfilment of obligations heretofore thrust upon him, or knowingly assumed. In this respect his instinct has proved much moreof a controlling factor than his ethics, --the shotgun has unfortunatelybeen more constantly in evidence than the Bible. As a prominent"expansionist" New England member of the present Congress has recentlydeclared in language, brutal perhaps in directness, but withalcommendably free from cant: "China is succumbing to the inevitable, andthe United States, if she would not retire to the background, mustadvance along the line with the other great nations. She must acquirenew territory, providing new markets over which she must maintaincontrol. The Anglo-Saxon advances into the new regions with a Bible inone hand and a shotgun in the other. The inhabitants of those regionsthat he cannot convert with the aid of the Bible and bring into hismarkets, he gets rid of with the shotgun. It is but anotherdemonstration of the survival of the fittest. " (Hon. C. A. Sulloway, Rochester, N. H. , Nov. 22, 1898. )

Next as regards our fundamental principles of equality of human rights, and the consent of the governed as the only just basis of allgovernment. The presence of the inferior races on our own soil, and ournew problems connected with them in our dependencies, have led to muchquestioning of the correctness of those principles, which, for itsoutspoken frankness, at least, is greatly to be commended. It is arguedthat these, as principles, in the light of modern knowledge andconditions, are of doubtful general truth and limited application. True, when confined and carefully applied to citizens of the same blood andnationality; questionable, when applied to human beings of differentrace in one nationality; manifestly false, in the case of races lessdeveloped, and in other, especially tropical, countries. [2] Asfundamental principles, it is admitted, they were excellent for a youngpeople struggling into recognition and limiting its attention narrowlyto what only concerned itself; but have we not manifestly outgrown them, now that we ourselves have developed into a great World Power? For suchthere was and necessarily always will be, as between the superior andthe inferior races, a manifest common sense foundation in caste, and inthe rule of might when it presents itself in the form of what we arepleased to call Manifest Destiny. As to government being conditioned onthe consent of the governed, it is obviously the bounden duty of thesuperior race to hold the inferior race in peaceful tutelage, andprotect it against itself; and, furthermore, when it comes to decidingthe momentous question of what races are superior and what inferior, what dominant and what subject, that is of necessity a question to besettled between the superior race and its own conscience; and one inregard to the correct settlement of which it indicates a tendency atonce unpatriotic and "pessimistic, " to assume that America could by anychance decide otherwise than correctly. Upon that score we must putimplicit confidence in the sound instincts and Christian spirit of thedominant, that is, the stronger race. 

It is the same with that other fundamental principle with which the nameof Lexington is, from the historical point of view, so closelyassociated, --I refer, of course, to the revolutionary contention thatrepresentation is a necessary adjunct to taxation. This principle also, it is frankly argued, we have outgrown, in presence of our newresponsibilities; and, as between the superior and inferior races, it issubject to obvious limitations. Here again, as between the policy of the"Open Door" and the Closed-Colonial-Market policy, the superior race isamenable to its own conscience only. It will doubtless on all suitableand convenient occasions bear in mind that it is a "Trustee forCivilization. "

Finally, as respects entangling foreign alliances, and their necessaryconsequents, costly and burdensome armaments and large standing armies, we are again advised that, having ceased to be children, we should putaway childish things. Having become a great World Power we must become acorresponding War Power. We are assured by high authority that, wereWashington now alive, it cannot be questioned he would in all theserespects modify materially the views expressed in the Farewell Address, as being obviously inapplicable to existing conditions. Under thesecircumstances, and in view of the obligations we have assumed, thePresident, and Secretaries of War and the Navy, recommend anestablishment the annual cost of which ($200, 000, 000), exclusive ofmilitary pensions, is in excess of the largest of those European WarBudgets, over the crushing influence of which we have expressed atraditional wonder, not unmixed with pity for the unfortunate tax-payer. 

Historically speaking, I believe these are all facts, susceptible ofverification. I do not mean to say that the arguments developing obviouslimitations in the application of the principles of the Declaration andthe Constitution have been avowedly accepted by our representatives, orofficially incorporated into our domestic and foreign policy. I doassert as an historical fact that these arguments have been advanced, and are meeting, both in Congress and with the press, a large degree ofacceptance. And hence comes a singular and most significant conclusionfrom which, historically, there seems to be no escape. It may or it maynot be fortunate and right; it may or it may not lead to beneficentfuture results; it may or it may not contribute to the good of mankind. Those questions belong elsewhere than in the rooms of an historicalsociety. Upon them we are not called to pass, --they belong to thepolitician, the publicist, the philosopher, not to us. But, ashistorical investigators, and so observing the sequence of events, itcannot escape our notice that on every one of the fundamental principlesdiscussed, --whether ethnic, economical, or political, --we abandon thetraditional and distinctively American grounds and accept those ofEurope, and especially of Great Britain, which heretofore we have madeit the basis of our faith to deny and repudiate. 

With this startling proposition in mind, consider again the severalpropositions advanced; and first, as regards the so-called inferiorraces. Our policy towards them, instinctive and formulated, has beeneither to exclude or destroy, or to leave them in the fullness of timeto work out their own destiny, undisturbed by us; fully believing that, in this way, we in the long run best subserved the interests of mankind. Europe, and Great Britain especially, adopted the opposite policy. Theyheld that it was incumbent on the superior to go forth and establishdominion over the inferior race, and to hold and develop vast imperialpossessions and colonial dependencies. They saw their interest and dutyin developing systems of docile tutelage; we sought our inspirations inthe rough school of self-government. Under this head the result then isdistinct, clean cut, indisputable. To this conclusion have we come atlast. The Old World, Europe and Great Britain, were, after all, right, and we of the New World have been wrong. From every point ofview, --religious, ethnic, commercial, political, --we cannot, it is nowclaimed, too soon abandon our traditional position and assume theirs. Again, Europe and Great Britain have never admitted that men werecreated equal, or that the consent of the governed was a condition ofgovernment. They have, on the contrary, emphatically denied bothpropositions. We now concede that, after all, there was great basis fortheir denial; that, certainly, it must be admitted, our forefathers werehasty at least in reaching their conclusions, --they generalized toobroadly. We do not frankly avow error, and we still think the assent ofthe governed to a government a thing desirable to be secured, undersuitable circumstances and with proper limitations; but, if it cannotconveniently be secured, we are advised on New England senatorialauthority that "the consent of some of the governed" will be sufficient, we ourselves selecting those proper to be consulted. Thus in such casesas certain islands of the Antilles, Hawaii, and the communities of Asia, we admit that, so far as the principles at the basis of the Declarationare concerned, Great Britain was right, and our ancestors were, notperhaps wrong, but too general, and of the eighteenth century, in theirstatements. To that extent, we have outgrown the Declaration of 1776, and have become as wise now as Great Britain was then. At any rate weare not above learning. As was long ago said, --"Only dead men and idiotsnever change;" and the people of the United States are nothing unlessopen-minded. 

So, also, as respects the famous Boston "tea-party, " and taxationwithout representation. Great Britain then affirmed this right in thecase of colonies and dependencies. Taught by the lesson of our War ofIndependence, she has since abandoned it. We now take it up, and areto-day, as one of the new obligations towards the heathen imposed uponus by Providence, formulating systems of imposts and tariffs for our newdependencies, wholly distinct from our own, and directly inhibited byour constitution, in regard to which systems those dependencies have norepresentative voice. They are not to be consulted as to the kind ofdoor, "open" or "closed, " behind which they are to exist. In taking thisposition it is difficult to see why we must not also incidentally admitthat, in the great contention preceding our War of Independence, thefirst armed clash of which resounded here in Lexington, Great Britainwas more nearly right than the exponents of the principles for whichthose "embattled farmers" contended. 

Again, consider the Monroe Doctrine, entangling foreign alliances, andthe consequent and costly military and naval establishments. The MonroeDoctrine had two sides, the abstention of the Old World frominterference in American affairs, based on our abstention frominterference in the affairs of the Old World. But it is now argued wehave outgrown the Monroe Doctrine, or at least the latter branch of it. It is certainly so considered in Europe; for, only a few days ago, soeminent an authority as Lord Farrar exultingly exclaimed in addressingthe Cobden Club, --"America has burned the swaddling clothes of theMonroe Doctrine. " Indeed we have, in discussion at least, gone far inadvance of the mere burning of cast-off infantile clothing, andalliances with Great Britain and Japan, as against France and Russia, are freely mooted, with a view to the forcible partition of China, towhich we are to be a party, and of it a beneficiary. For it is alreadyavowed that the Philippines are but a "stopping-place" on the way to thecontinent of Asia; and China, unlike Poland, is inhabited by an"inferior race, " in regard to whom, as large possible consumers ofsurplus products, Providence has imposed on us obvious obligations, material as well as benevolent and religious, which it would be unlikeourselves to disregard. It is the mandate of duty, we are told, --thenations of Europe obey it, and can we do less than they? "Isolation" itis then argued is but another name for an attention to one's ownbusiness which may well become excessive, and result in selfishness. Itis true that the nations of the Old World have not heretofore erredconspicuously in this respect; and as the "Balance of Power" was theword-juggle with which to conjure up wars and armaments in theeighteenth century, so the "Division of Trade" may not impossibly provethe similar conjuring word-juggle of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, "isolation" is not compatible with the policy of a GreatNation under a call to assert itself as a World Power. Then follows thefamiliar argument in favor of costly military and naval establishments. But, upon this head it is needless to restate our traditionalpolicy, --our jealousy as a people of militarism and large standingarmies, to be used, if occasion calls, as a reserve police. Our recordthereon is so plain that repetition grows tedious. The record of Europe, and especially of Great Britain as distinguished from other Europeanpowers, has been equally plain, and is no less indisputable. In thisrespect, also, always under compulsion, we now admit our error. Costlyarmies are necessary to the maintenance of order, Heaven's first law;and World Powers cannot maintain peace, and themselves, without powerfulnavies and frequent coaling stations. 

Finally, even on such matters as the Protective System and theencouragement of American Labor, as against the "Pauper Labor" of Europeand of the inferior races, Great Britain has for half a century nowadvocated the principle of unrestricted industry and free trade, --thatis the "Open Door" policy logically carried to its final results. Wehave denied it, establishing what we in time grew to call thedistinctive American system. It is, however, now asserted that "Tradefollows the Flag, " and that, as respects dependencies at least, the"Open Door" policy is the best policy. If "Trade follows the Flag" independencies, and, by so doing, affords the American producer allneedful protection and every fair advantage in those dependencies, it isnot at once apparent why it fails so to do at home. Is it less docileto the flag, less in harmony with and subservient to it, in the UnitedStates, within our own limits, than in remote lands under that flagbeyond the seas? And, if so, how is such an apparent anomaly accountedfor? But with this question we are not concerned. That problem is forthe economist to solve, for in character it is commercial, nothistorical. The point with us is that again, as regards the "OpenDoor, "--free trade and no favor, so far as all outside competition isconcerned, American labor and "pauper" labor being equally outside, --onthis long and hotly contested point, also, England appears on the faceof things to have had after all much the best of the argument. 

As regards "Pauper Labor, " indeed, the reversal contemplated ofestablished policy in favor of European methods is specially noteworthy. The labor of Asia is undeniably less well paid even than that of Europe;but it is now proposed, by a single act, to introduce into ourindustrial system ten millions of Asiatics, either directly, or throughtheir products sold in open competition with our own; or, if we do notdo that, to hold them, ascribed to the soil in a sort of old Saxonserfdom, with the function assigned them of consuming our surplusproducts, but without in return sending us theirs. The greatcounterbalancing consideration will not, of course, be forgotten that, like the English in India, we also bestow on them the Blessings ofLiberty and the Bible; provided, always, that liberty does not includefreedom to go to the United States, and the Bible does include theexcellent Old Time and Old World precept (Coloss. 3: 22), "Servants, obey in all things your masters. "

It is the same in other respects. It seems to be admitted by thePresident, and by the leading authorities on the imperialistic policy, that it can only be carried to successful results through the agency ofa distinct governing class. Accordingly administration through theagency of military or naval officers is strongly urged both by thePresident and by Captain Mahan. Other advocates of the policy urge itsadoption on the ground, very distinctly avowed, that it will necessitatean established, recognized Civil Service, modelled, they add, on that ofGreat Britain. If, they then argue, Great Britain can extend--as, indeed, she unquestionably has extended--her system of dependencies allover the globe, developing them into the most magnificent empire theworld ever saw, it is absurd, unpatriotic, and pessimistic to doubt thatwe can do the same. Are we not of the same blood, and the same speech?This is all historically true. Historically it is equally true that, todo it, we must employ means similar to those Great Britain has employed. In other words, modelling ourselves on Great Britain, we must slowly andmethodically develop and build up a recognized and permanent governingand official class. The heathen and barbarian need to be studied, anddealt with intelligently and on a system; they cannot be successfullymanaged on any principle of rotation in office, much less one whichascribes the spoils of office to the victors at the polls. What theseadvocates of Imperialism say is unquestionably true: The politicalmethods now in vogue in American cities are not adapted to thegovernment of dependencies. 

The very word "Imperial" is, indeed, borrowed from the Old World. Asapplied to a great system of colonial dominion and foreign dependenciesit is English, and very modern English, also, for it was first broughtinto vogue by the late Earl of Beaconsfield in 1879, when, by Act ofParliament introduced by him, the Queen of England was made Empress ofIndia. It was then he enunciated that doctrine of _imperium etlibertas_, the adoption of which we are now considering. While it may bewise and sound, it indisputably is British. 

Thus, curiously enough, whichever way we turn and however we regard it, at the close of more than a century of independent existence we findourselves, historically speaking, involved in a mesh of contradictionswith our past. Under a sense of obligation, impelled by circumstances, perhaps to a degree influenced by ambition and commercial greed, we haveone by one abandoned our distinctive national tenets, and accepted intheir place, though in some modified forms, the old-time European tenetsand policies, which we supposed the world, actuated largely by ourexample, was about forever to discard. Our whole record as a people is, of course, then ransacked and subjected to microscopic investigation, and every petty disregard of principle, any wrong heretofore silently, perhaps sadly, ignored, each unobserved or disregarded innovation ofthe past, is magnified into a precedent justifying anything andeverything in the future. If we formerly on some occasion swallowed agnat, why now, is it asked, strain at a camel? Truths once accepted as"self-evident, " since become awkward of acceptance, were ever thuspettifogged out of the path, and fundamental principles have in this wayprescriptively been tampered with. It is now nearly a century and aquarter ago, when Great Britain was contemplating the subjection of herAmerican dependencies, that Edmund Burke denounced "tampering" with the"ingenuous and noble roughness of truly constitutional materials, " as"the odious vice of restless and unstable minds. " Historically speakingit is not unfair to ask if this is less so in the United States in 1898than it was in Great Britain in 1775. 

What is now proposed, therefore, examined in connection with ourprinciples and traditional policy as a nation, does apparently indicatea break in continuity, --historically, it will probably constitute whatis known in geology as a "fault. " Indeed, it is almost safe to say thathistory hardly records any change of base and system on the part of agreat people at once so sudden, so radical, and so pregnant withconsequences. To the optimist, --he who has no dislike to "Old Jewry, " asthe proper receptacle for worn-out garments, personal or political, --theoutlook is inspiring. He insensibly recalls and repeats those fine linesof Tennyson:

 "To-day I saw the dragon-fly Come from the wells where he did lie. 

 "An inner impulse rent the veil Of his old husk: from head to tail Came out clear plates of sapphire mail. 

 "He dried his wings: like gauze they grew: Thro' crofts and pastures wet with dew A living flash of light he flew. "

To others, older perhaps, but at any rate more deeply impressed with thedifference apt to develop between dreams and actualities, the situationcalls to mind a comparison, more historical it is true, but lessinspiriting so far as a commitment to the new policy is concerned. Atthe risk, possibly, of offending some of those present, I will ventureto institute it. In the fourth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, I find this incident recorded: "The devil taketh him [theSaviour] up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all thekingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, Allthese things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan. Then the devil leavethhim, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. " Now, historically speaking, and as a matter of scriptural exegesis, that thispassage should be accepted literally is not supposable. Satan, on theoccasion referred to, must not be taken to have presented himself to theSaviour _in propriā personā_ with his attributes of horns, tail, andcloven hoof, and made an outright proposition of extra-territorialsovereignty. It was a parable. He who had assumed a lofty moral attitudewas tempted by worldly inducements to adopt a lower attitude, --that, ina word, common among men. It was a whispering to Christ of what amongnations, is known as "Manifest Destiny;" in that case, however, aspossibly in others, it so chanced that the whispering was not from theAlmighty, but from Satan. Now if, instead of recognizing the sourcewhence the temptation came, and sternly saying, "Get thee hence, Satan, "Christ had seen the proposition as a new Mission, --thought, in fact, that he heard a distinct call to Duty, --and so, accepting aResponsibility thrust upon him, had hurried down from the "exceedinghigh mountain, " and proceeded at once to lay in a supply of weapons andto don defensive armor, renouncing his peaceful mission, he would havedone exactly--what Mohammed did six centuries later!

I do not for a moment mean to suggest that, as respects the voice of"Manifest Destiny, " there is any similarity between the case of theSaviour and that which we, as a people, are now considering. I am not aprophet, nor do I claim prophetic insight. We are merely historicalinvestigators, and, as such, not admitted into the councils of theAlmighty. Others doubtless are, or certainly claim to be. They knowevery time, and at once, whether it is the inspiration of God or thedevil; and forthwith proclaim it from the house-tops. We must admit--atany rate no evidence in our possession enables us to deny--theconfidential relations such claim to have with either or both of theagencies in question, --the Divine or the Infernal. All I now have inmind is to call attention to the obvious similarity of the positions. Ascompared with the ideals and tenets then in vogue, --principles ofmanhood, equality before the law, freedom, peace on earth, and good-willto men, --the United States, heretofore and seen in a large way, has, among nations, assumed a peculiar, and, from the moral point of view, unquestionably a lofty attitude. Speaking historically it might, andwith no charge of levity, be compared with a similar moral attitudeassumed among men eighteen centuries before by the Saviour. Itdiscountenanced armaments and warfare; it advocated arbitrations, andbowed to their awards; spreading its arms and protection over the NewWorld, it refused to embroil itself in the complications of the Old;above all, it set a not unprofitable example to the nations of benefitsincident to minding one's own business, and did not arrogate to itselfthe character of a favorite and inspired instrument in the hands of God. It even went so far as to assume that, in working out the inscrutableways of Providence, character, self-restraint, and moral grandeur werein the long run as potent in effecting results as iron-clads andgatling-guns. 

Those who now advocate a continuance of this policy are, as neatly aswittily, referred to in discussion, "for want of a better name, " as"Little Americans, " just as in history the believers in the long-runefficacy of the doctrines of Christ might be termed "Little Gospellers, "to distinguish them from the admirers of the later, but more brilliantand imperial, dispensation of Mohammed. That the earlier, and lessimmediately ambitious, doctrine was, in the case of the United States, only temporary, and is now outgrown, and must, therefore, be abandonedin favor of Old World methods, especially those pursued with suchstriking success by Great Britain, is possible. As historicalinvestigators we have long since learned that it is the unexpected whichin the development of human affairs is most apt to occur. Who, forinstance, in our own recent history could ever have foreseen that, inthe inscrutable ways of the Almighty, the great triumph of Slavery inthe annexation of Texas, and the spoliation of that inferior race whichinhabited Mexico, was, within fifteen years only, to result in whatLincoln called that "terrible war" in which every drop of blood everdrawn by the lash was paid by another drawn by the sword? Again, in May, 1856, a Representative of South Carolina struck down a Senator fromMassachusetts in the Senate-chamber at Washington; in January, 1865, Massachusetts battalions bivouacked beside the smoking ruins of SouthCarolina's capital. Verily, as none know better than we, the ways ofProvidence are mysterious, and past finding out. None the less, thoughit cannot be positively asserted that the world would not have beenwiser, more advanced, and better ordered had Christ, when on that"exceeding high mountain, " heard in the words then whispered in his eara manifest call of Duty, and felt a Responsibility thrust upon him tosecure the kingdoms of the earth for the Blessings of Liberty and theBible by so small a sacrifice as making an apparently meaninglessobeisance to Satan, yet we can certainly say that the world would nowhave been very different from what it is had He so done. And so in thecase of the United States, though we cannot for a moment assert that itsfate and the future of the world will not be richer, better, andbrighter from its abandonment of New World traditions and policies infavor of the traditions and policies of the Old World, we can saywithout any hesitation that the course of history will be greatlychanged by the so doing. 

In any event the experiment will be one of surpassing interest to thehistorical observer. Some years ago James Russell Lowell was asked bythe French historian, Guizot, how long the Republic of the United Statesmight reasonably be expected to endure. Mr. Lowell's reply has alwaysbeen considered peculiarly happy. "So long, " said he, "as the ideas ofits founders continue dominant. " In due course of time we, or those whofollow us, will know whether Mr. Lowell diagnosed the situationcorrectly, or otherwise. Meanwhile, I do not know how I can better bringto an end this somewhat lengthy contribution to the occasion, than byrepeating, as singularly applicable to the conditions in which we findourselves, these verses from a recent poem, than which I have heard nonein the days that now are which strike a deeper or a truer chord, or onemore appropriate to this New England Paschal eve:

 "The tumult and the shouting dies, The captains and the kings depart; Still stands thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget--lest we forget!

 "Far-called our navies melt away, On dune and headline sinks the fire-- Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget--lest we forget!

 "If, drunk with sight of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe, Such boasting as the Gentiles use Or lesser breeds without the law-- Lord God of hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget--lest we forget!

 "For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard-- All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding calls not Thee to guard-- For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy mercy on thy people, Lord! Amen. "

Taken in connection with the foregoing paper, the following-letter, addressed to the Hon. Carl Schurz, is self-explanatory:

BOSTON, December 21, 1898. 

MY DEAR MR. SCHURZ:

In a recent letter you kindly suggest that I submit to you a sketch ofwhat, I think, should be said in an address such as it is proposedshould now be put forth by the Anti-Imperialist League to the people ofthe United States. 

I last evening read a paper before the Lexington Historical Society, inwhich I discussed the question of extra-territorial expansion from thehistorical point of view. A copy of this paper I hope soon to forwardyou. Meanwhile, there is one aspect, and, to my mind, the all-importantaspect of the question, which, in addressing an historical society, wasnot germane. I refer to the question of a practical policy to be pursuedby us, as a nation, under existing conditions. That Spain has abandonedall claim of sovereignty over the Philippine islands admits of noquestion. Whether the United States has accepted the sovereignty thusabandoned is still an open question; but this I do not regard asmaterial. Nevertheless, we are confronted by a fact; and, whenever wecriticise the policy up to this time pursued; we are met with an inquiryas to what we have to propose in place of it. We are invited to stopfinding fault with others, and to suggest some feasible alternativepolicy ourselves. 

To this we must, therefore, in fairness, address ourselves. It is, in myjudgment, useless to attempt to carry on the discussion merely in thenegative form. As opponents of an inchoate policy we must, in place ofwhat we object to, propose something positive, or we must abandon thefield. Accepting the alternative, I now want to suggest a positivepolicy for the consideration of those who feel as we feel. I wish yourjudgment upon it. 

There has, it seems to me, been a great deal of idle "Duty, " "Mission, "and "Call" talk on the subject of our recent acquisition of "Islandsbeyond the Sea, " and the necessity of adopting some policy, commonlydescribed as "Imperial, " in dealing with them. This policy is, in theminds of most people who favor it, to be indirectly modelled on thepolicy heretofore so successfully pursued under somewhat similarconditions by Great Britain. It involves, as I tried to point out in theLexington paper I have referred to, the abandonment or reversal of allthe fundamental principles of our government since its origin, and ofthe foreign policy we have heretofore pursued. This, I submit, isabsolutely unnecessary. Another and substitute policy, purely American, as contradistinguished from the European or British, known as"Imperial, " policy, can readily be formulated. 

This essentially American policy would be based both upon our cardinalpolitical principles, and our recent foreign experiences. It is commonlyargued that, having destroyed the existing government in Cuba, PortoRico, and the Philippines, we have assumed a political responsibility, and are under a moral obligation to provide another government in placeof that which by our action has ceased to exist. What has been ourcourse heretofore under similar circumstances? Precedents, I submit, atonce suggest themselves. Precedents, too, directly in point, and withinyour and my easy recollection. 

I refer to the course pursued by us towards Mexico in the year 1848, andagain in 1866; towards Hayti for seventy years back; and towardsVenezuela as recently as three years ago. It is said that theinhabitants of the islands of the Antilles, and much more those of thePhilippine archipelago, are as yet unfitted to maintain a government;and that they should be kept in a condition of "tutelage" until they arefitted so to do. It is further argued that a stable government isnecessary, and that it is out of the question for us to permit acondition of chronic disturbance and scandalous unrest to exist so nearour own borders as Cuba and Porto Rico. Yet how long, I would ask, didthat condition exist in Mexico? And with what results? How long has itexisted in Hayti? Has the government of Venezuela ever been "stable"?Have we found it necessary or thought it best to establish agovernmental protectorate in any of those immediately adjacent regions?

What has been, historically, our policy--the American, as distinguishedfrom the European and British policy--towards those communities, --twoof them Spanish, one African? So far as foreign powers are concerned, wehave laid down the principle of "Hands-off. " So far as their owngovernment was concerned, we insisted that the only way to learn to walkwas to try to walk, and that the history of mankind did not show thatnations placed under systems of "tutelage, "--taught to lean for supporton a superior power, --ever acquired the faculty of independent action. 

Of this, with us, fundamental truth, the British race itself furnishes avery notable example. In the forty-fourth year of the Christian era theisland of Great Britain was occupied by what the "Imperial" Romansadjudged to be an inferior race. To the Romans the Britonsunquestionably were inferior. Every child's history contains an accountof the course then pursued by the superior towards that inferior race, and its results. The Romans occupied Great Britain, and they occupied ithard upon four centuries, holding the people in "tutelage, " andprotecting them against themselves, as well as against their enemies. With what result? So emasculated and incapable of self-government didthe people of England become during their "tutelage" that, when Rome atlast withdrew, they found themselves totally unfitted forself-government, much more for facing a foreign enemy. As the last, andbest, historian of the English people tells us, the purely despoticsystem of the imperial government "by crushing all local independence, crushed all local vigor. Men forgot how to fight for their country whenthey forgot how to govern it. "[3] The end was that, through sixcenturies more, England was overrun, first by those of one race, andthen by those of another, until the Normans established themselves in itas conquerors; and then, and not until then, the deteriorating effect ofa system of long continued "tutelage" ceased to be felt, and theislanders became by degrees the most energetic, virile, andself-sustaining of races. As nearly, therefore, as can be historicallystated, it took eight centuries for the people of England to overcomethe injurious influence of four centuries of just such a system as it isnow proposed by us to inflict on the Philippines. [4] Hindostan wouldfurnish another highly suggestive example of the educational effects of"tutelage" on a race. After a century and a half of that British"tutelage, " what progress has India made towards fitness forself-government? Is the end in sight?

From the historical point of view, it is instructive to note the exactlydifferent results reached through the truly American policy we havepursued in the not dissimilar cases of Hayti and Mexico. While Hayti, itis true, has failed to make great progress in one century, it has madequite as much progress as England made during any equal periodimmediately after Rome withdrew from it. And that degree of slowness ingrowth, which with equanimity has been endured by us in Hayti, couldcertainly be endured by us in islands on the coast of Asia. It cannot begainsaid that, through our insisting on the policy of non-interferenceourselves, and of non-interference by European nations, Hayti has beenbrought into a position where it is on the high road to better things infuture. That has been the result of the prescriptive American policy. With Mexico, the case is far stronger. We all know that in 1848, afterour war of spoliation, we had to bolster up a semblance of a governmentfor Mexico, with which to negotiate a treaty of peace. Mexico at thattime was reduced by us to a condition of utter anarchy. Under the theorynow gaining in vogue, it would then have been our plain duty to make ofMexico an extra-territorial dependency, and protect it against itself. We wisely took a different course. Like other Spanish communities inAmerica, Mexico than passed through a succession of revolutions, fromwhich it became apparent the people were not in a fit condition forself-government. Nevertheless, sternly insisting on non-interference byoutside powers, we ourselves wisely left that country to work out itsown salvation in its own way. 

In 1862, when the United States was involved in the War of theRebellion, the Europeans took advantage of the situation to invadeMexico, and to establish there a "stable government. " They undertook toprotect that people against themselves, and to erect for them a speciesof protectorate, such as we now propose for the Philippines. As soon asour war was over, we insisted upon the withdrawal of Europe from Mexico. What followed is matter of recent history. It is unnecessary to recallit. We did not reduce Mexico into a condition of "tutelage, " orestablish over it a "protectorate" of our own. We, on the contrary, insisted that it should stand on its own legs; and, by so doing, learnto stand firmly on them, just as a child learns to walk, by beingcompelled to try to walk, not by being kept everlastingly in "leadingstrings. " This was the American, as contradistinguished from theEuropean policy; and Mexico to-day walks firmly. 

Finally take the case of Venezuela in 1895. I believe I am not mistakenwhen I say that, during the twenty-five preceding years, Venezuela hadundergone almost as many revolutions. It certainly had not enjoyed astable government. Through disputes over questions of boundary, GreatBritain proposed to confer that indisputable blessing upon aconsiderable region. We interfered under a most questionable extensionof the Monroe Doctrine, and asserted the principle of "Hands-off. "Having done this, --having in so far perpetuated what we now call thescandal of anarchy, --we did not establish "tutelage, " or a protectorate, ourselves. We wisely left Venezuela to work out its destiny in its ownway, and in the fullness of time. That policy was far-seeing, beneficent, and strictly American in 1895. Why, then, make almostindecent haste to abandon it in 1898?

Instead, therefore, of finding our precedents in the experience ofEngland, or that of any other European power, I would suggest that thetrue course for this country now to pursue is exactly the course we haveheretofore pursued under similar conditions. Let us be true to our owntraditions, and follow our own precedents. Having relieved the Spanishislands from the dominion of Spain, we should declare concerning them apolicy of "Hands-off, " both on our own part and on the part of otherpowers. We should say that the independence of those islands is morallyguaranteed by us as a consequence of the treaty of Paris, and then leavethem just as we have left Hayti, and just as we left Mexico andVenezuela, to adopt for themselves such form of government as the peoplethereof are ripe for. In the cases of Mexico and Venezuela, and in thecase of Hayti, we have not found it necessary to interfere ever or atall. It is not yet apparent why we should find it necessary to interferewith islands so much more remote from us than Hayti, and than Mexico andVenezuela, as are the Philippines. 

In this matter we can thus well afford to be consistent, as well aslogical. Our fundamental principles, those of the Declaration, theConstitution, and the Monroe Doctrine, have not yet been shown to beunsound--why should we be in such a hurry to abandon them? Ourprecedents are close at hand, and satisfactory--why look away from themto follow those of Great Britain? Why need we, all of a sudden, be sovery English and so altogether French, even borrowing their nomenclatureof "imperialism?" Why can not we, too, in the language of Burke, becontent to set our feet "in the tracks of our forefathers, where we canneither wander nor stumble?" The only difficulty in the way of our sodoing seems to be that we are in such a desperate hurry; while naturalinfluences and methods, though in the great end indisputably the wisestand best, always require time in which to work themselves out to theirresults. Wiser than the Almighty in our own conceit, we think to getthere at once; the "there" in this case being everlasting "tutelage, " asin India, instead of ultimate self-government, as in Mexico. 

The policy heretofore pursued by us in such cases, --the policy of"Hands-off, " and "Walk alone, " is distinctly American; it is notEuropean, not even British. It recognizes the principles of ourDeclaration of Independence. It recognizes the truth that all justgovernment exists by the consent of the governed. It recognizes theexistence of the Monroe Doctrine. In a word, it recognizes everyprinciple and precedent, whether natural or historical, which has fromthe beginning lain at the foundation of our American polity. It does notattempt the hypocritical contradiction in terms, of pretending toelevate a people into a self-sustaining condition through theleading-string process of "tutelage. " It appeals to our historicalexperience, applying to present conditions the lessons of Hayti, Mexico, and Venezuela. In dealing with those cases, we did not find a greatstanding army or an enormous navy necessary; and, if not then, why now?Why such a difference between the Philippines and Hayti? Is Cuba largeror nearer to us than Mexico? When, therefore, in future they ask us whatcourse and policy we Anti-Imperialists propose, our answer should bethat we propose to pursue towards the islands of Antilles and thePhilippines the same common-sense course and truly American policy whichwere by us heretofore pursued with such signal success in the cases ofHayti, Mexico, and Venezuela, all inhabited by people equally unfit forself-government, and geographically much closer to ourselves. We proposeto guarantee them against outside meddling, and, above all, from"tutelage, " and make them, by walking, learn to walk alone. 

This, I submit, is not only an answer to the question so frequently putto us, but a positive policy following established precedents, and, whatis more, purely American, as distinguished from a European or British, policy and precedents. 

I remain, etc. , CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

_Hon. Carl Schurz, 16 E. 64th Street, New York City. _

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "Obviously, men are not born equal in physical strength or in mentalcapacity, in beauty of form or health of body. Diversity or inequalityin these respects is the law of creation. But this inequality is in noparticular inconsistent with complete civil or political equality. 

"The equality declared by our fathers in 1776 and made the fundamentallaw of Massachusetts in 1780, was _Equality before the Law_. Its objectwas to efface all political or civil distinctions, and to abolish allinstitutions founded upon _birth_. 'All men are _created_ equal, ' saysthe Declaration of Independence. 'All men are _born_ free and equal, 'says the Massachusetts Bill of Rights. These are not vain words. Withinthe sphere of their influence, no person can be _created_, no person canbe _born_, with civil or political privileges not enjoyed equally by allhis fellow-citizens; nor can any institutions be established, recognizing distinctions of birth. Here is the Great Charter of everyhuman being drawing vital breath upon this soil, whatever may be hisconditions, and whoever may be his parents. He may be poor, weak, humble, or black, --he may be of Caucasian, Jewish, Indian, or Ethiopianrace, --he may be born of French, German, English, or Irish extraction;but before the Constitution of Massachusetts all these distinctionsdisappear. He is not poor, weak, humble, or black; nor is he Caucasian, Jew, Indian, or Ethiopian; nor is he French, German, English, or Irish;he is a MAN, the equal of all his fellow-men. He is one of the childrenof the State, which, like an impartial parent, regards all its offspringwith an equal care. To some it may justly allot higher duties, accordingto higher capacities; but it welcomes all to its equal hospitable board. The State, imitating the divine Justice, is no respecter ofpersons. "--_Works of Charles Sumner, Vol. II. , pp. 341-2_. 

[2] Historically speaking, the assertion in the Declaration ofIndependence has been fruitful of dispute. The very evening the presentpaper was read at Lexington the Mayor of Boston, in a public addresselsewhere, alluded to the "imprudent generalizations of ourforefathers, " referring, doubtless, to what Rufus Choate, forty-twoyears before, described as "the glittering and sounding generalities ofnatural right" to be found in the Declaration, "that passionate andeloquent manifesto. " Mr. Calhoun declared (1848) that the claim of humanequality set forth in the Declaration was "the most false and dangerousof all political errors, " which, after resting a long time "dormant, "had, in the process of time, begun "to germinate and produce itspoisonous fruits. " Mr. Pettit, a Senator from Indiana, pronounced it in1854, "a self-evident lie. " In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debate inIllinois (1860) the question reappeared, Mr. Douglas contending that theDeclaration applied only to "the white people of the United States;"while Mr. Lincoln, in reply, asserted that "the entire records of theworld, from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to withinthree years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in theDeclaration. " The contention of Mr. Douglas had recently again made itsappearance in the press as something too indisputable to admit ofdiscussion. It is asserted that, in penning the Declaration, Mr. Jefferson could not possibly have intended to include those thenactually held as slaves. On this point Mr. Jefferson himself should, itwould seem, be accepted as a competent witness. Referring to the denialof his "inalienable rights" to the African, he declared at a later day, "I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just. " What hemeant will, however, probably continue matter for confident newspaperassertions just so long as anybody in this country wants to make out, asdid Stephen A. Douglas in 1860, a plausible pretext for subjugatingsomebody else, --Indian, African, or Asiatic. As Mr. Lincoln expressedit, "The assertion that all men are created equal was of no practicaluse in effecting our separation from Great Britain, and it was placed inthe Declaration, not for that but for future use. Its author meant it tobe, as, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to allthose who, in after times, might seek to turn a free people back intothe paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breedtyrants, and they meant, when such should reappear in this fair land, and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least onehard nut to crack. "--_Works_, Vol. I. , p. 233. 

[3] Green's Short History (Ill. Ed. ). Vol. I. P. 9. 

[4] The Roman legions were withdrawn from Great Britain in 410; MagnaCharta was signed in June, 1215, and the reign of French kings overEngland came to a close in 1217. It is a striking illustration of thedeliberation with which natural processes work themselves out, that theperiod which elapsed between the withdrawal of Rome from England, andthe recovery of England by the English, should have exceeded by morethan a century the time which has as yet elapsed since England was thusrecovered.