Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 15, 1900)
'Cbe Coneervativc * TIIE CONSERVA- ANGLK VS. 1IOKII. . . . . TIVE is in receipt of a number of letters expressing ' 'indig nation" regarding nn article on this subject , published in its issue of Janu ary 11 , in which the position was taken that it would be better for the people of the United States and civilization , that the English rather than the Boer suc ceeded. The war in South Africa was considered in the light of history , and the inviolable law of self-preservation as applied to ourselves. The question of sympathy with either the English or Boer was not and should not be taken into consideration. In spite of all mis taken coilceptious to the contrary all questions of right and rights begin and end at home , if intelligently considered. Justice , like charity , begins and ends at home. One of the indignant objectors declares that we upheld the position that "not an American cares today what piece of highway robbery falls under his eyes , he closes them tight , provided he has the assurance that the robber divid ed his plunder. " Such an accusation is false. It is an absolute evasion of the position taken in THE CONSERVATIVE. That position was that British success would be more favorable to commercial prosperity in the United States and elsewhere , mak ing a greater market for our goods , thereby increasing the freedom of Amer ican laborers , and for the cause of freedom in general , than that of the Boers. If that position is not absolutely true and founded on the history of An glican colonization , even in this country , then THE CONSERVATIVE pleads guilty of ignorance. That there are others who take the same "mercenary" view may bo seen _ , . . from the following There Arc Others. . _ . . , , in the Philadel phia Times , perhaps more mercenary were our position appreciated , for the writer never yet had sense enough to be accused of "mercenary views" by those who know him. The Times says : "Eng land has now no choice but to surrender South Africa to the Boers or make South Africa an English colony. None who have studied the English character can for a moment doubt what choice England will make , and when her choice is made she has the power to carry it to its consummation. "The Boer war now promises to be a long struggle , and none can hope for its termination for a year , and it is possible it may last for several years. England is equal to all the exactions that this war shall make upon her , and this coun try will profit by the conflict just in proportion as the war shall be increased in magnitude. " The Boston Herald and other leading papers , by no means administration or gans , uphold the same position and not on mercenary grounds by any means. Our indignant correspondent further says : "Could anything show a more rottenly dishonest heart and braiu than the following : 'The Boers wanted their whole country to themselves and only tolerated others if they could make them pay tribute. To that there is no objection if the Boors were strong enough to do it. ' " "To that , " our cor respondent says , "the Boers are right and there is no objection to their mak ing laws governing immigration provid ed some overwhelming power does not set covetous eyes on their territory , in which case 'might makes right , ' and your correspondent commends the acts of might. The principle is dishonest. The paper that publishes it is not safe. Stop my paper. " Again , it is said , the indignant corre spondent either does not see or evades . , , , tne issue. First , 14. Makes * . Might Right. , as we have said and shall continue to say , might is not only invariably right , but might only makes right. The mistake made is in reading the assertion to mean that the apparent mighty always do right. The only standard of action is the nature , or liability , of the reaction on the actor. When the actor so acts as to bring the liability of a dangerous reaction on him self , he is weak in intelligence and self- control. He is no more mighty no matter how brutally , or otherwise suc cessful. In this issue , we think both the English government and that of the Boers weak , regardless of the brutal might of either or both. They are both working serious injury to themselves which an intelligent might would have prevented. Our correspondent is run away with by the ideal that a right ex ists in theory , whereas a thing existing in theory only has no actual existence. There is no such thing as theoretic right. No right ever existed without the might to make it actual. No right ever will be such without might behind it. Weak ness never made a right , nor is weakness ever right. The survival of the fittest is dependent on the might to survive and is the strongest manifestation of force in nature. Time decides what is fittest , not theoretic idealism. The question at issue between the English government and the Boer government - _ , . . . , ernment is not The Question ut Issne , , . , one of highway robbery of territory , not even one of self-government on the parb of the people ple of Boerdom , but whether all the people , particularly the English inhabit ants of Boerdom , shall have an equal share in the government ? It is the old of "Taxation without question Repre sentation , " with the tables reversed , for which our fathers fought. The English government is fighting for the equal representation of its people in the gov ernment of Boerdom. We do not say that territorial expansion is not in the issue , though we doubt it. At any rate Americans cannot throw stones at Eng- A4'iSMt * * . < - SMt4. ' land on that score. The Filipino stares ns in the face. While it cannot be said that no one should be indignant at ideas expressed by others , it is a , , . , , T iT . . . Indignation ut Id ens. . , question when he should express his indignation. Those who express indignation , and de mand that THE CONSERVATIVE be stopped , because of ideas herein ex pressed , are outrageously inconsistent. "While in sympathy with the freedom of the Boers they would be , and are so far as they can be , opposed to freedom of expression , a cardinal American princi ple if there be such. All cowardice is based on ignorance or self-conscious weakness. There is no cowardice so great Indignation Often M f0Qr of an M Cowardice. . . . no matter how re pugnant it may be to one's preconcep tions. An idea itself can harm no man. It is the action following on , or liable to , that can harm. The question is the nature of the harm. An idea that is antagonistic to preconceptions , hurts feelings only and is therefore harmless. The only ideas that are dangerous are those liable to lead to the destruction of life or property , which may include freedom of action , but not so-called freedom in thought or speech. A man may proclaim there is no God , no im mortality. It may hurt feelings but it does no harm. But , if he advocates the destruction of the churches , of the cler gy , or of believers because he thinks there is no God , then his ideas are dang erous to life and property , and he should be shut up. He is a weak man because he imperils his own life , no matter how strong his arguments may be. So of the man who asserts he does not believe in government. He may assert it till the crack of doom , but if he seeks to put his thoughts into action he tramples on the law of self-preservation which in others is mighty and in himself weak. The very basis of all government , and our own particularly , is the will of the majority , which is but the logical acceptance that might is and makes right , for the time being at least. But , if that majority undertakes to deprive the minority of freedom of discussing its actions , it portrays cowardly weak ness and imperils its might. The majority of those who favor the Boers do so either on traditional or pre judicial grounds. The Boer Question . , fto ( Again. \ . . . - f tcrhoc : it has been , therefore it must be , is no argument at all. Some time since quite a famous clergyman entered upon the impossible task of "converting" the writer. He put this question , as to him an all con clusive argument : "If you knew that all the best men in the world , past and present , your father and mother and all your most respected relatives were of an opinion directly opposed to yours ,
