8 'Che Conservative.
THE UNITED STATES AND SPAIN.
[ From Prof. Win. Graham Sumnur's Recent
Address in Nc\v Haven. ]
During the lost year the public has
been familiarized with descriptions of
Spain and of Spanish methods of doing
things until the name of Spain has be
come a symbol for a certain well-defined
set of notio ir > .ind policies. On the other
hand , the name of the United States has
always been , for all of us , a sj'inbol
for a state of things , a set of ideas
and traditions , a group of views about
social and political affairs. Spain was
the first , for a long time the greatest , of
( ho modern imperialistic states. The
United States , by its historical origin ,
its traditions , and its principles , is
the chief representative of the revolt
and reaction against that kind of
a state. I intend to show that , by the
line of action now proposed to xis , which
we call expansionism and imperialismwe
are throwing away some of the most
important elements of the American
symbol , and arc adopting some of the
most important elements of the Spanish
symbol. Wo have beaten Spain in a
military conflict , but we are submitting
to be conquered by her on the field of
ideas and policies. Expansion and im
perialism are nothing but the old phil
osophies of national prosperity which
have brought Spain to where she now is.
Those philosophies appeal to national
vanity and national cupidity. They are
seductive , especially upon the first view
and the most superficial judgment , and
therefore it cannot bo denied that thoj'
are very strong for popular effect. They
are delusions , and they will lead us to
ruin unless we are hard-headed enough
to resist them. In any case the year
1898 is a great landmark in the history
of the United States. The consequences
will not be all good or all bad , for such
is not the nature of societal influences.
They are always mixed of good and ill ,
and so it will be in this case. Fifty
4,1 'J years from now the historian , looking
back to 1898 , will no doubt see in the
course which things will have taken ,
consequences of the proceedings of that
year , and of this present one , which
will not be all bad , but you will observe
that that is not a justification for a
happy-go-lucky policy ; that does not
affect our duty today in all that wo dote
to seek wisdom and prudence and to de
termine our actions by the best judg
ment which wo can form.
War , expansion , and imperialism are
questions of statesmanship and of noth
ing else. I disregard
OlICfitlolIK Of
gard all other as
pects of them , and
all extraneous elements which have been
intermingled with them. I received the
other day a circular of a now educa
tional enterprise in which it was urged
that , on account of our now possessions ,
wo ought now to devote especial study
to history , political economy , and what
is called political science. I asked my
self , why ? What more reason is there
for pursuing these studies now on be-
mlf of our dependencies than there was
jefore to pursue them on behalf of our
selves ? In our proceedings of 1898 , wo
made no use of whatever knowledge we
had of any of these lines of study. The
original and prime cause of the war was
: .lmt it was a move of partisan tactics in
: he strife of parties at Washington. As
soon as it seemed resolved upon , a num
ber of interests began to see their ad
vantage in it , and hastened to further it.
tt was necessary to make appeals to the
public which would bring quite other
motives to the support of the enterprise ,
and win the consent of classes who
would never consent to either financial
or political jobbery. Such appeals were
found in sensational assertions which
we had no means to verify , in phrases
of alleged patriotism , in statements
ibotit Cuba and the Cubans which wo
now know to have been entirely untrue.
Where was the statesmanship of all
this ? If it is not an established rule of
statecraft that a statesman should never
impose any sacrifices upon his people
for anything but their own. interests ,
then it is useless to study political phil
osophy any more , for this is the alphabet
of it. It is contrary to honest states
manship to imperil the political welfare
of the state for party interests. It was
uustatesmaulike to publish a solemn
declaration that we would not seize any
territory and especially to characterize
such action in advance as "criminal ag
gression , " for it was morally certain
that wo should come out of any war
with Spain with conquered territory on
our hands , and the people who wanted
the war , or who consented to it , hoped
that wo would do so.
We talk about "liberty" all the time
in a glib and easy way , as if liberty was
a thing that men
Liberty. °
could have if they
want it , and to any extent to which they
want it. It is certain that a very large
part of human liberty consists simply in
the choice either to do a thing or let it
alone. If wo decide to do it , a whole series
of consequences is entailed upon us in re
gard to which it is exceedingly difficult ,
or impossiblefor us to exercise any liberty
at all. The proof of this from the case
before us is so clear and easy that. I need
spend no words upon it. Hero , then ,
you have the reason why it is a rule of
sound statesmanship not to embark
on an adventurous policy. A statesman
could not bo expected to know in ad
vance that wo should come out of the
war with the Philippines on our hands ,
but it belongs to his education to warn
him that a policy of adventure and
of gratuitous enterprise would be sure
to entail embarrassments of some kind.
What comes to us in the evolution of
our own life and interests , that we
must meet ; what wo go to seek which
lies beyond that domain , is a waste
of our energy and a compromise of
our liberty and welfare. If this is
not sound doctrine , then the historical
and social sciences have nothing to teach
us which is worth any trouble.
There is another observation , how
ever , about the war which is of far
. greater iuipor-
,
VloliitiiiK f . . V.
Suir-Govorniiiciit. tmlco ' thnt ls'thftt
it was agross viola
tion of self-government. We boast that
wo uro a self-governing people , and in
this respect , particularly , we compare
ourselves with pride with older nations.
What is the difference , after all ? The
Russians , whom wo always think of as
standing at the opposite pole of political
institutions have self-government , if you
mean by it acquiescence in what a little
group jof people at the head of the govern
ment agree to do. The war with Spain
was precipitated upon us headlong ,
without reflection or deliberation , and
without any duo formulation of public
opinion. Whenever a voice was raised
in behalf of deliberation and the recog
nized maxims of statesmanship , it was
howled down in a storm of vituperation
and cant. Everything was done to
make us throw away sobriety of thought
and calmness of judgment , and to
inflate all expressions with sensational
epithets and turgid phrases. It cannot
be denied that everything in regard to
the war has been treated in an exalted
strain of sentiment and rhetoric very
unfavorable to the truth. At present ,
the whole periodical press of the country
seems to be occupied in tickling the na
tional vanity to the utmost by represen
tations about the war which are extrava
gant and fantastic. There will be a
penalty to be paid for all this. Ner
vous and sensational newspapers are
just as corrupting , especially to young
people , as nervous and sensational
novels. The habit of expecting that all
mental pabulum shall bo highly spiced ,
and the corresponding loathing for
whatever is soberly truthful , under
mines character as much as any other
vice. Patriotism is being prostituted
into a nervous intoxication which is
fatal to an apprehension of truth. It
builds around us a fool's paradise and
it will lead us into errors about our
position and relations just like those
which wo have been ridiculing in the
case of Spain.
There are some now who think that
it is the perfection of statesmanship to
say that expansion is a fact , and that it
is useless to discuss it. Wo are told
that wo must not cross any bridges
until wo couio to them ; that is , that wo
must discuss nothing in advance , and
that wo must not discuss anything
which is past , because it is irretrievable.
No doubt this would bo a very ac
ceptable doctrine to the powers that be ,
, , , for it would mean
Agreeable to , , , , ,
McKhUeyiain. * hat they were re-
1 i e v ed from re
sponsibility , but it would be a marvel-
