YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

LIBERTY TRACTS. No. 2.
PATRIOTISM AND
IMPERIALISM

BY
J. LAURENCE LAUGHLIN

"I do not speak 'of forcible annexation, because that is not to be
thought of, and under our code of morality that -would be criminal
aggression." — President McKinley, Message to Congress, iSgy.
"The genius and character of our institutions are peaceful, and the
power to declare -war was not conferred upon Congress for the purpose
of agression or aggrandizement, but to enable the General Government
to Tindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and
the rights of its citizens."— t/. S. Supreme Court, in "Fleming vs. Paige,"
q How . {.U. S. Rep. bi4)

Additional copies of tliis tract will be supplied on application to
address below. Please to send postage.

PUBLISHED BY
CENTRAL ANTI-mPERIALIST LEAQUE
TACOMA BUILDING, CHICAQO
¦899

*c#v» 'i'it'

i PATRIOTISM AND IMPERIALISM.
I-
CRITICISM OF THE ARMY.
Very recently, actuated by the highest patriotic mo
tives, the State of lUinois enacted that the national
flag should not be degraded by advertisements and
thus basely used as an agent of trade. This, of course,
was not an assault upon the flag, but a protection to
it, and the men who thus protested against its dese
cration were not disloyal, but in a very true sense
loyal. Those who protest against desecrating the
flag by making the emblem of liberty the agent of
trade and private gain in other ways are equally loyal.
While our troops were encamped at Chickamauga,
suppose that a subordinate officer happened upon an
intoxicated soldier who was dragging the regimental
flag in the mire. On making report of this to his col
onel, what would happen? Would the colonel abuse
the subordinate as disloyal (or worse), and say he was
attacking the flag? By no means. Of course he
would examine the facts, and punish the soldier if
guilty. The offender would be held to account for
violating military rules, if nothing more. Nor would
it ever occur to anyone to suppose that by reporting
this offense the subordinate was reflecting on the rest
of the army, or on its bravery. In reality, the subor
dinate was protecting the army itself by reporting
whatever^if it were not punished — would bring- dis
honor upon the army.
Again, suppose that I knew of some soldiers at one
of our Southern camps in a brawl, cutting the throats
of innocent farmers near the camp. The instant I
made my statement to the commanding officer, he
would have judged my prima facie evidence quickly,
then promptly ascertained the facts, and had the of
fenders tried and judged. " He would have done this
exactly because he wished to uphold the character and
discipline of his troops. What would have been thought
of an officer who, on evidence of such matters being
laid before him, should fly into a bombastic rage and
cry: "Sir, you are assailing the army. You are at
tacking the flag! You are a traitor?" If an officer
had refused to examine the facts, he would himself
have become the excuser and defender of acts which
were a dishonor to all good soldiers throughout the

army. He would have been disloyal to his duty, to the
regulations of war, and to his flag.
Now, coming to the present situation, if there is
credible evidence presented, not by enemies of the
government, but by our own soldiers, that, under
cover of our flag, acts have been committed which are
not only contrary to the military practice of civilized
states, but infinitely shocking to the moral sense of
this age, is it right and proper to report these things
to our superior officers ? To this, any sane person
would at once say, "Yes." It would not be regarded
as an assault upon the other men of the army who are
as much shocked as we are at such acts.* .  .
The brave men of the army are the very ones who ^
would wish to punish the offenders, for the sake of
their own honor and the honor of the flag. When
bigots cry "Treason!" and "Disloyalty!" to those
who report such statements, they are themselves put
ting the whole mass of brave and honorable soldiers in
the same class -with these offenders, to the spite and
damage of our splendid troops. If, in the intoxication
of war, some wrong policy is inaugurated which
brings shame to our brave boys, then those who have
instituted such a policy are the ones who are disloyal
to the army, and to the flag — nay riiore, disloyal to the
self-respect of our men and to the rules of civilized
warfare. fi
The conduct of the Seventy-first New York Volun
teers at San Juan was generally believed to have been
cowardly; and on their return to New York a false
pubHc opinion cowed aU expression of the truth. But
*"We must all bear our portion of the shame and disgrace
¦which this great political war has forced upon us. Unless speed
ily remedied, it will be, or at least should be, the death-knell
of the administration."— Letter from Albert L. Brockway, Ser
geant in Company M, 20th Kansas, dated Caloocan, March 14,
and published in the Clay Center (Kan.) Dispatch, May 4, 1S99.
"A soldier in two wars, I am opposed to the use of the
soldier for anything but the defense of the honor and the laws
of his country. To take up the work of destruction of human
life in the Philippines where the Spaniards were . by us com
pelled to leave off is revolting to our sense of right, and to
civilize them with the sword and cannon is contrary to modern
ideas of philanthropy. And sueh benevolent assimilation is
worse than hypocritical, and has not even the element of natural
advantage to recommend it. Warfare in the Philippines has
¦drifted away from the methods of civilization, and the shoot
ing down of a people who only desire the opportunity to be
free and self-governed is contrary to the essence of our tra
ditions. The people of the nation have not authorized it, and
It is the work of men elected to official position for other and
better purposes, who, of right, should use our armies only for
the defense of our country's honor, and not for the conquest
of empire, lest it prove for. us and. our country an overvaulting
ambition that leaps and falls upon the other side."— Major W.
H. Daly, of Gen. Miles' staff, at banquet of Medical Society of
Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Pa., May 17, 1S99, as reported in the •
public press.

was Governor Roosevelt disloyal because he later ap
proved of a court of inquiry into the charges ? Is he
assailing the army and the flag because some officers.
proved themselves cowards? It is too absurd to dis
cuss. Governor Roosevelt has mercilessly censured
the cowardly officers who put a shame on the rank
and file. By his action he has cleared the fair name
of the army and wiped a stain from the flag. In this.
it is he who is truly loyal, not those who tried to stifle
examination by crying down the truth as "disloyal."
f There can be no doubt that today our army as a.
whole, if properly led and fed, is the best fighting body
in the world. In no other army has there ever beea
greater eagerness to get into action, greater dash,
greater coolness under fire, more sublime courage, or
more reckless disregard of life when ordered to charge-
well-protected positions. Such examples as those of
Roosevelt and many others at San Juan and Canej',.
and Funston at the Rio Grande, are splendid evidences.
that the strenuous life of a republic in times of peace
abundantly well provides, for the emergencies of war,.
the best fighting material in the world. There is not
the shghtest doubt in the mind of any one of the abihty
of our army to conquer the Filipinos and reduce their
islands to a desert.. Nor is it likely that the war can
I last long if skill and bravery can decide it.
IL
CIVIL,IZED WARFARE.
In a short speech at Central Music Hall, Chicago,.
April 30, 1899, I quoted from a letter written by a
Kansas soldier in Luzon, describing the shooting of
four prisoners. This was received by the partisan.
press with abuse* instead of sorrow. The brutal in
sensibility to the honor of our army, and to the unsul
lied flag of our nation, thus displayed by a bigoted
press was something incredible. I gave no evidence
that I could not verify. The extract from the letter is
as follows:
"Company 1 had taken a few prisoners and stopped.
The Colonel ordered them up into line time after time, and
finally sent Captain Bishop back to start them. Then
occurred the hardest sight I ever saw. They had four pris
oners and did not know what to do with them. They asked
¦"The Inter Ocean sent a reporter to me, to whom I gave the
hame of Charles Brenner, of the Kansas regiment, who lived'
in or near Minneapolis, Kan. The next morning the report
was falsified and headed as "A Lie" admitted by me. This was
done seemingly for the purpose of allowing the statement, with
other billingsgate, in a hysterical editorial that: "Professor
Laughlin gave no regiment, no company, but simply repeated'
¦ what was on its face a cheap newspaper lie."

iCaptain Bishjp what to do, and he said, 'You know the
orders,' and four natives fell dead."
The letter is authentic. It was sent by Charles N.
Brenner, Company M, Twentieth Kansas Regiment,
to his father, who lives in Bennington, Kansas, twelve
miles from Minneapolis, Kan., and by his father hand
ed to Mr. A. P. Riddle, editor of the Minneapolis Mes
senger (a RepubHcan newspaper supporting the ad
ministration), in which paper it was published ii.
April. In confirmation of the possibility of such an act as
referred to by Brenner, I here give an extract from a
letter written by this same Captain W. H. Bishop
(now promoted to major) to his wife, dated "Caloocan
Battlefield, March i, 1899," and pubhshed in the Re
publican-Journal of Salina, Kan. : -,
"The insurgents have not flred on us since last night, and
I understand an attempt is being made to patch things up —
my idea of the way is to kill the whole outfit, and blow the
islands out of existence."
This shows simply how one who is represented as
a "man of character" by his neighbors can be carried
away by the "drunkenness of war." '^
Additional evidence as to the undue severity of our
policy in the PhiHppines is at hand. Harry P. Todd,
a trumpeter in the same company (M) with Brenner,
Twentieth Kansas, wrote a letter dated, "Ft. Mc
Arthur, Caloocan, February 24, 1899," which was pub
lished in the Republican-Journal of Salina, Kan.,
April 12, 1899, in whjch he said :
"Somehow or other some of the insurgents got around
our line at the end of the bay, and got back tp town. There
Tvere 150 of them, and they captured our short line train and
¦depot and drove the guards back. That was at 4 o'clock
yesterday morning, and by daylight the inside, or town
guard, marched out toward our lines with orders to give
no quarters to any Filipino, and the guard marched straight
along, killing every insurgent that poked his head in view.
At one place they killed 50, and in all 180."
The testhnony given by Rev. C. F. Dole, of Ja
maica Plain, Mass., who is personally known to many
of us bears on the same question. Pie sent to the Bos
ton Transcript, of April 15, a letter he had from the
father of one of our soldiers, who wrote to his father
as foHows :
"The longer I stay here and the more I see and think of
the matter, the more fully convinced I am that the Ameri
can nation was and' is making a blunder. * * ¦* I don't
think I would miss the truth much if I said more non-
combatants have been killed than native soldiers. 1 don't
believe the people in the United .States understand the ques-
tibn, or the condition of things here, or the inhuman, war-

fare now being carried on. Talk about Spanish crueltyl
They are not in it with the Yank. Even the Spanish are
shocked. Of course, I don't expect to have war without
death and destruction, but I do expect that when an enemy
gets down on his Knees and begs for his life that he won't
be shot in cold blood. But it is a fact that the order was.
not to take any prisoner, and I have seen enough to almos^
make me ashamed to call myself an American."
In this matter I have given only the materials which
1 have personally verified.* They fully sustain any
brief remarks I made in my short speech. There are
many other letters bearing on the same point whose
authenticity can easily be tested, coming from soldiers
of several states. The sickening deeds above recount
ed are no indictment of the private, or subordinate,
who obeys orders; they do form a stinging indict
ment of those who originated the policy of cruelty,
whoever they may be. As against deeds of this sort,
I beg the reader to set off the words of gahant Cap
tain Phillip of the Texas, at the destruction of Cer-
vera's fleet: "Don't cheer, boys, the poor devils are
dying!" And who does not remember with a thrill of
pride in our splendid navy the efforts made by our
sailors, even at the risk of life, to rescue the Spanish
survivors from the exploding wrecks of the enemy's
ships ? Is it possible that the Spanish whose brutality
to their subjects in Cuba and in the Philippines be
came a by-word and a reproach, were better treated
by us in war than the poor people whom we have
gone to war to protect ? It will not do to meet honest
inquiry with suppression of the truth and intolerance.
The right to discuss the policy of our government has
never been repressed without disaster to those who
have tried to do it. As has been well said : "If the
government cannot trust the people, the people can
not trust the government."
If an indefensible use is being made of our splendid
army in the Philippines, not only is it permitted to us
to discuss it, but it is our duty to do so. There is little
use in trying to censor the mails to prevent free dis
cussion. If there is something about our policy in
* Lieutenant A. A. Barnes, Battery G, 3rd U. S. Artillery,
wrote a letter to his brother, dated March 20, 1899, which was
published in the Greensburg Standard, Greensburg, Ind., May
5, 1899 (a Republican paper), saying:
• * * "The town of Titatia was surrendered to us a few
days ago, and two companies occupy the same. Last night one
of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Imme
diately orders were received from Gen. Wheaton to burn the-
town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a flnish.
About 1,000 men, women and children were reported killed.
• * • TeU all my inquiring friends that I am doing everything
I can fdr Old Glory and for America I love so^ well."
Such affairs may be exaggerated, but it is hardly likely that
they should have been fnvented, by men In different regi
ments.

the Philippines which will not bear examination, it is
certain to get out sooner or later. There is little need
of preventing anti-expansion literature from going to
our soldiers, when the soldiers themselves are sending
the most effective anti-expansion letters home to the
voters. Or, shall we perhaps try to muzzle our sol
diers? Can we refuse to believe the letters of these
brave men from different regiments? What shall we
call those people who decry the truthfulness and sin
cerity of the fearless fellows who have described the
horrors of the Philippine campaign? What right
have they to characterize* the words of our own hard-
fighting soldiers as "treasonable" and "disloyal?"t
Objectors may say that this is the wrong time to
speak of such things. The right time to protest is
when protest can avail something. Of what use would
it be to wait until the war is over, with regard to
events going on during the war?
Suppose, on an excursion train, word came back to
us from the cars in front that some of the train crew
were tampering with the couplings and likely to cause
disaster. We should go at once to the conductor,
asking him to investigate it, and stop the cause of
danger. If the conductor simply called us names, we
should think him incapable, or demented. But un
doubtedly, he would instantly examine the facts and
prevent all such things in the future. Abuse would
be no remedy for freedom of speech. If we ask the
conductor in the Philippine war to look after some
unsuitable subordinates, it is really in the interest of
the good men in the crew, of the passengers, and
above all, of himself. It is blind stupidity to ask us
to keep still until the train stops, because there would
then be no use in speaking about things which could
do damage only when the train was in motion.
• To illustrate the mendacity of the daily press, and their
utter perversion of my remarks about the flag being to the
Filipinos "an emblem of tyranny and butchery" (a very com
monplace phrase from the point of view of the natives), I place
the two following quotations side by side:
"Prof. J. Laurence Laugh- " 'No American flags,' said
lin, • • * pointing to a flag the chairman [of the Audito-
used In draping, shouted: rium meeting May 7] 'were
'There, the flag Is the emblem to be seen at the Cen-
of tyranny and butchery.' " — tral Music Hall meeting last
N. T. Evening World, May 1, Sunday.' " — Chicago Times-
1899. Herald, May 8, 1899.
tThe leading Republicau newspaper of Kansas resents the insinua
tion that the Kansas soldiers were untruthful and untrustworthy in their
letters Borne, and takes the position that, since the facts cannot be
denied, the policy of se-verity^raust be justifiable. A general denial by
any official in the Philippines should not be allowed to reflect on the
honesty of our rank and file. Professor Worcester makes no specific
denial of Brenner's letter.

III.
THE REAL, ISSUE.
The disposal of prisoners and non-combatants, how-
•ever, is not the main question at issue in regard to the
Philippine war, and no one would be more rejoiced
than I if the statements of undue severity were proved
to be mistaken. The real issue is whether we have

any moral right to wage war against the Filipinos;
and whether the slaughter of the natives in battle is
not a great moral and political blunder. Since this
is "forcible annexation," then, according to the
President's own words, it is "criminal aggression."

The l^resident, as he himself has frequently put it,
IS the servant of the people. The people are the mas
ters who delegate to their servant the execution of the
law ; and they put in his hands an army to enforce the
will of-the people as expressed in the law. The Presi
dent cannot pass laws ; he can only execute them. If
the executive should use the army for enforcing a
policy contrary to the fundamental principles of our
¦republic, he could not possibly hope to escape criti
cism. But to criticise the policy of the administration
¦is not to criticise the army which has sworn to obey
orders from above. Hence the attempt to make out
that those who oppose the policy of the government
in the Philippines are assailing the army, and charge
able with disloyalty, is either an example of perversion
and intolerance, or it is a childish attempt to divert
the minds of the public from the real issue.* If we
¦satisfy our minds that the subjugation of an alien race
in the Philippines is not only morally wrong, but con
trary to the Declaration of Independence and to the
lundamental principles of our republic, then we must
"believe that the policy of the government is tyranny,
and none the less so because exercised upon a weak
people. If this be true, it is wrong to use a brave
and loyal army for such a purpose. Exactly because
•The Auditorium meeting of the "royalist party" (May 7)
¦avoided all discussion of the real issue, and assumed that those
who could not approve all that the administration was doing
were disloyal! Strange attempt to stifle free discussion in a
republic! "Some one on a back seat called for the singing of
the 'Battle Cry ot Freedom,' but it seemed good to Chairman
Horton to announce another tune, 'The. Star-Spangled Ban
ker' " (Times-Herald, May 8, 1899).

one respects and honors the army, should one object
to its use- in an indefensible pohcy. To oppose the
purpose of the administration in the PhiHppines is
wholly consistent with admiration for a brave army.
To criticise a man who draws a knife on his neighbor
is not a criticism of the knife which he used as an in
strument. To criticise the policy of the government
implies no criticism whatever of the instrument (the
army) which the government used.
IV.
CAUSE OF THE PHILIPPINE WAR.
The exact point to be asked is : For what purpose
are we fighting the Filipinos? To this the imperial
ists reply (i) we received the sovereignty over the
Philippine Islands from Spain by our treaty of peace ;
and (2) we are now only "enforcing law and order"
against insurgents who are in rebellion against the
United States.
On the first point, it is to be remembered that the
"spirit of 1776," originated in a war against Great
Britain, the whole essence of which was a protest
against "taxation without representation," and in fa
vor of the assertion that government "derives its just
powers from the consent of the governed." The out
come of the War of the Revolution estabhshed the
principle in our government that sovereignty resides
in the people, and not in a dynasty, or crowned head ;
that the executive is the servant of the, people. That
sovereignty resides in a crowned head is a monarchical
conception foreign to our institutions. Queen Vic
toria can speak of her "subjects" because Great Brit
ain is a monarchy." Exactly because th^ United States
is not a monarchy we cannot have "subjects," but
only citizens in whom the sovereignty resides. There
fore, when some one says we have received sovereign
ty over the Philippine Islands by the treaty with Spain
it must be remembered that we can exercise only
the American, but not the Spanish kind of sov-
erignty. Spain, or Great Britian, could hold
"subjects" in the Philippines; but the United
States never — unless we should agree to annul the
•central point of our revolution against King
George. Unless we give up the whole issue which
brought our republic into being; unless we abandon
the principles on which our government has been
-conducted for more than a. century; unless we falsify
the theory of poHtical existence on which abolition of
slavery was urged and the war for the Union fought—

there can be no imperialistic sovereignty over the-
Philippines held by the United States. They may
of their own will ask for admission as citizens to-
our Union, but "forcible annexation," according to
our polity as correctly interpreted by President
McKinley, "is criminal aggression."
/ If then, the natives of the Philippine Islands oppose
pur conquest of their land by force, we have no moral
/right to send our army against them in "criminal ag-
/ gression." ' If it is not right to wage war for conquest
' against the Cubans, whom we freed from Spain, it is
not right in the Philippines.
Why then are we at war with the Filipinos? Be
cause we have never acknowledged their right to lib
erty. I challenge any one to present an act or a.
word from the United States up to this time whiclt
indicated to the Filipinos that we intended to give
them a free and independent government — such as we
promised the Cubans. In the President's proclama
tion of last December, he said : "In fulfillment of the
rights of sovereignty thus acquired [by a treaty with
Spain] * * * tj^g actual occupation and admin
istration of the entire group of the' Philippine Islands
becomes immediately necessary." ' Then the, naive
words are added — in diametrical opposition to the
foregoing assertion of sovereignty without asking the
consent of the governed — "It will be the duty of the
commander of the forces of occupation to announce
* * * that we come, not as invaders or conquer
ors but as friends." *Never, in any form known to^
*The ethical situation Is exactly presented by Professor
WiUiam James, the eminent psychologist of Harard in a fable-
which he quotes as follows:
"A hippopotamus, which, walking one day in the forest
[excuse the natural history], scared a hen-partridge from her
nest of new-hatched fledglings. Touched with compassion, the-
kind-hearted anijnal exclaimed: 'You poor, forsaken babes!
Let me be a mother to j'ou.' So she sat down upon the nest
of little partridges. — 'Moral: It is not every one who can run
an orphan asylum.'
"This fable seems to have been written by a prophet, for
nothing could better hit off the 'blended humor and pathos' of
the present situation. Having scared Spain from the nest, we
are trying to run the orphan asylum by the methods of the
hippopotamus. Unquestionably the great heart of our people
means well by the Islanders, genuinely wills them good. So
doubtless does our administration. But what worse enemy to
a situation of need can there be than dim, foggy, abstract
good will, backed by energetic ofliciousness, and unillumined
by any accurate perception of the concrete wants and possibili
ties of the case. * * •
"Seriously, and before the bar either of morals or of prac
tical common sense, is it an endurable notion that such vague
and half-awake good will, 'moving about in worlds not real
ized, as that hippopotamus the American people possesses,
should actually have the vital destinies of the Filipinos en
trusted to its hands? The foregone necessity of a tragic issue
to the efforts of such an unintelligent colossus, forms one of
those grotesque and sinister contradictions in human affairs
at which the angels are supposed to weep. • * •
"It the war is prolonged, and especially if ^.ny of our regi
ments should suffer severe loss, the blind good will of the
American heart would change as easily as shot silk into ani
equally blind "o'lll to 'Kill, Kill, Kill!'"
ro

the public have we recognized the right of the Fili
pinos to their independent government now or in thfr
future. Then we wonder why the Filipinos have
gone to war! Would not the Cubans do the same
thing under the same treatment ?
Before the Filipinos went to war they protested,
begged for an understanding, and never got it. In
return, our acts and words have constantly been those
Of masters to subjects. "Surrender unconditionally,
and then we will treat with you," we have always said.
The Filipinos never resisted us, until it became only
too clear that we meant to hold their land as our own.
Consider this brief and melancholy chronology :
May, 1898. Aguinaldo brought to Manila ou U. S. man-
of-war McCulloch.
July. U. S. troops reach Cavite.
July 22. Aguinaldo made dictator.
July 25. General Merritt arrives.
August 13. Manila taken.
Our army refused to acknowledge help of
Aguinaldo.
September 19. Reinforcements ordered to Otis.
October 31. Peace commissioners at Paris demand the
Philippine Islands.
November 18. Panay, as -well as Southern Islands, in
hands of Filipinos.
December 10. Treaty signed by commissioners at Paris.
December 16. Agoncillo files protest against treaty at
Paris.
December 26. Filipinos occupy Iloilo.
December 21. President's proclamation declaring sov
ereignty of the United States over the
Philippine Islands.
January 2. Six regiments ordered to Otis.
January 7. Aguinaldo protests against American occu
pation, and the violation of American
promises to grant independence.
January 14. Sen. Hoar introduces into the Senate a res
olution that the Filipinos "are and
of right ought to be free and inde
pendent."
January 16. Philippine commission appointed.
February 4. Night battle between Americans and Fili
pinos at Manila.
February 5. Great battle. 2,000 natives killed.
February 6. Senate ratifies treaty with Spain.
February 10. Treaty signed by President..
February 11. Offensive operations begun by U. S. troops.
February 15. Proclamation by an important ofiicer of
the Filipinos to exterminate "the false
Americans who have deceived us."
March 4. Congress adjourns.
American Commission arrives at Manila.
Many talk of the war as necessary because forced
upon us at the beginning. On the contrary there was
never a .time when we could not have avoided or
stopped war by a declaration of liberty to the natives.
11

The evidence of Gen. C. McC. Reeves of Minnesota,
recently returned from Manila, is given in the St. Paul
'Globe, April 26, as follows :
"I can tell you one piece of news that is not generally
Tcnown in the United States. On Sunday, February 5, the
¦day after the fighting began, Gen. Torres of the insurgents
came through the lines under a fiag of truce and had a per
sonal interview vith Gen. Otis, in which, speaking for
Aguinaldo, he declared that the fighting had been begun ac-_
¦cidentally, and •was not authorized by Aguinaldo; that
Aguinaldo wished to have it stopped, and that to bring
-about a conclusion of hostilities he proposed the establish
ment of a neutral zone between the two armies, of any width
that would be agreeable to Gen. Otis. * »= * xo these
representations of Gen. Torres, Gen. Otis sternly replied that
the fighting, having been once begun, must go on to the
.grim end."
No doubt the natives were aggravating and child
ish, but it is not clear that they began the hostilities.
' Harper's Weekly (May 20, 1899, p. 501), in connection
with its Philippine correspondence, gives a photo-
.graph' (with the name) of the American soldier on the
¦spot and in the position where he fired the first shot in
the Philippine war. This is also confirmed by Gen.
Mc Arthur's report, as well as that of Gen.
Otis. The Americans gathered at Lexington
and Concord in such a way as to provoke the
British to fire the first shot of the Revolution. We
set the Filipinos the example of what a liberty-loving
•people should do. But the real cause of the war was,
in both cases, a passionate desire for liberty and in
dependence. Is it impossible for us to view the case
as one of right and wrong, and not as one of might?
What matters when or how the war began : Is it right
and just? If it is unjust and wrong, we must answer
at the judgment day for every one of those poor
Filipinos heaped up in the trenches of the dead. A
¦clergyman* has well mentioned Emerson's quotation
from the Persian Saadi : "When the orphan sets a-
crying, the throne of the Almighty rocks from side
to side." V.
IMPERIALISM HERE AND NOW.
Many good men, however, tell us we should not
protest now, but wait until the war is over. This ad-
• In contrast with this, a clergyman in Chicago is reported
to have said in his sermon: "The crack of the rifles of GSn.
Otis' advancing array has in it the music of the coming ot the
;Son of God." — (Times-Herald, May 1.) This sermon should have
been followed by the hymn:
Ten thousand natives sent below,
'Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
12

vice cannot be followed because the very carrying on
of the war is the evidence of imperialism. The crea
tion, under our institutions, of a master and subject
• race, is the new and startling innovation which fits
poorly with our republican training. It is exactly be
cause the royahsts assume the right. of the United
States to have subjects, who are not citizens (adopt
ing something wholly foreign to our institutions), in
impossible imitation of Great Britain, which is a mon
archy and not a republic ("subjects" being a part of
her theory of government), that we got into this
trouble in the beginning. We find ourselves in the
anomalous position of making war to enforce the prin
ciple that the Filipinos are not, and of right ought not
to be, free and independent. Has history ever record
ed a more startling exhibition of a nation eating the
very words she used twelve months ago in going tO'
war to free the Cubans? If we are going to war tO'
enforce law and order in the Philippines, under the
monarchical idea of buying a people, we are estab
lishing by force of might a rule which may some day
work against us.
It is repeated again and again that our would-be
policy is not im'perialistic ; and yet every day and
every hour our acts belie our words. Treating the
Filipinos as subjects to be conquered is the very es
sence of imperialism. The relationship of master and
subject is vitally opposed to aH the principles of free
institutions. The imperialistic policy daily enforced
manifests its absurd contradictions with free govern
ment. While saying that the United States has. sov
ereignty over the PhiHppines, and that it is a part of
our country, where men fighting against us are
"rebels" and- "insurgents," we refuse to allow the
transmission by mail to citizens in the Philippines of
matter which is everywhere sent throughout the free
part of the American empire lying between the At
lantic and Pacific oceans. Then^ while some say that
"the simple legal fact is that, the Philippine Islands
are at this moment as truly United States territory
as Illinois," a group of Filipinos arriving at San
Francisco (destined for a dime museum) are forbidden
to land. "Land where our fathers died,
From every mountain side
— Except the Philippine side —
Let Freedom ring!" ( — B. C. Manning.)-
It is as if our people were now on a railway train in
motion. When we discover, by looking around us
13

and seeing unusual things, that we have been switched
from the main track of our old order off on to the
branch leading to station ImperiaHsm, we go to the
conductor at once and protest. The reply given us"
is : "Keep quiet until we reach our destination. Be
harmonious by accepting the existing situation.''' To
this we reply : "We never bought our tickets for this
station Imperialism. We are being deceived." They
reply : "You are donkeys ! Don't talk while the train
is in motion." Meanwhile, every hour the train is
tearing ahead on the imperialistic road. The fact that
the slightest criticism of the un-republican policy in
the PhiHppines is regarded as a personal assault on
the President is unfortunately strong evidence that
the policy of the administration is really expansionist.
If it is not, then it is very easy to give us evidence by
acts which will deny it. VI.
THE WAY OUT.
If it is criminal aggression to conquer an inferior
race by force, then we have no ri^ht to refuse all
terms but unconditional surrender to the natives. If
Ave intend to give them self-government, there is no
need of further war, the moment we are willing to dis
close that intention. Some extremists thunder at
those of us who are pointing out the moral iniquity
of this war as giving aid to the enemy and as being
the cause of further losses in our brave army. Strange
misunderstanding, when our purpose is to help bring
the war to a close as soon as possible, by showing why
it should cease. . Those should be held responsible for
further losses in our own army who continue an un
just war which it is within their power to end. A
great many people who say Httle agree that it is i "bad
mess," and wish we were well out of it. No doubt the
war may soon be closed — but the great question of our
imperialistic pohcy wiH not be settled by the subjuga
tion of the natives ; nor wiH our troubles then cease.
One day a man with a baby in his arms at the Zoo
logical Garden caught hold of a Hon's tail which lay
outside the cage. The lion stealthily twisted his body,
and pulling in with his tah was craftily drawing the
man and- child within reach of his paw. The man's
wife called out: "Drop the Hon's tail, WilHam." To
which the husband replied : "You are a donkey !
You show no afTection for me. Wait until the affair
is over!" "But, Wilham, aU you need do is to drop-
14

the lion's tail," she cried. Whereupon he answers :
"Don't talk while the trouble is going on. I'm pull
ing as hard as I can." If the administration with the
people in its arms should realize that the only and
matural thing to do to get out of the trouble is to drop
the tail of Imperialism, the difficulty would vanish at
once. We have done enough — Heaven knows — to
«how the natives our power. A proposal to give j
-them the same free and independent governmenf
which we promised the Cubans would stop this ter
rible bloodshed. Let us obtain an agreement to as
sure the rights of liberty and property to foreigners,
with a protectorate of the United States which will
^guarantee the Filipinos against outside interfer-
¦ence, and the details would settle themselves in the
hands of good diplomats. The present cause of
trouble inheres in the continued demand for complete
.subjugation and surrender of their independence,
which keeps the natives ready to die by thousands for
love of liberty. Why not give them the coveted~|
liberty,. save the lives of our brave soldiers from the
deadly cHmate, and give no more of our presence over_^
rthere than is necessary to protect the islands from
foreign aggression. And yet the royalists 'say we
have no practical program ; because we have no place
,in our system for peace on the basis of conquest and'
imperialism. The royahsts speak of the Filipinos
just as Spain spoke of the Cubans — the best elements
;are eager ior our rule, etc., etc.
The real character of the existing pohcy has been
little understood. Every humble attempt to. discuss
it freely has been met, not by discussion of the prin
ciples involved, but by abuse, by efforts to divert at-
¦tention from the issue by raising the question of loy
alty. As if a few men had a "corner" on loyalty!
The present sensitiveness to the truth is that of the
man who has been rudely kicked in the ribs because
all other means of waking him have failed when his
"house was on fire. When he gets fairly roused from
"his moral drowsiness he will be thankful that his life
was saved; but while only hah awake he is full of
:abuse and violence. VII.
ROYALIST VS. LIBERTY PARTY.
It is well for this generation that it has now a great
¦moral issue. It will cultivate the conscience, and the
•¦discussion wiH bring out again the vitality of the basic

principles of republican instituti"Ons. It is a contest
between the tory, or royalist, party that wishes to-
create a relation of master and subject races on the
one hand, ahd the liberty party that insists on free
dom of speech, self-government, and "liberty for all
men in all lands," on the other hand. At the Audi
torium meeting (May 7) a clergyman said of the-
Declaration^ of Independence : "As to that hallowed
document that declares that all governments derive^
their just powers from the consent of the governed,
if that is to be literally construed there never was a
greater falsehood palmed off by the devil on a credu
lous world." To this I suggest as a contrast these
words of Abraham Lincoln :
"In those [early] days our Declaration of Independ
ence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all;
but now * "^ * it is assailed and sneered at and con
strued, and hawked at and torn, till if its framers could:
rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it.
All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against
him [for the negro, read the Filipino]. Mammon is after
him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the the
ology of the day is fast joining the cry." (Speeches, I.,.
23L) Lincoln's breadth and largeness of views led him
to state* the principles of liberty so as to be applicable
in all times and in all lands. If, instead of slavery,
we read subjugation of the Filipinos, we have Lincoln
again speaking to his fellow-citizens of Illinois :
- "I hate it because it deprives our republican example of
its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free
institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites;
causes the real friend of freedom to doubt our sincerity,
and especially because it forces so many really good men
amongst ourselves into an open war with" the very funda
mental principles of civil liberty — criticising the Declara
tion of Independence, and insisting that there is no right;
principle of action but self-interest." (Vol. I, 288.)

16

¦'¦¦ ^/\^ *«%3?««""

<...

t»'4
IH' * is.'"

VXf

Ml,.'>v; "•¦^'-

L,j_. y&^ -i'^ §g^.

¦f

....*' ^ AS,. -.

lA-: