旅游  |  攻略  |  美食  |  自驾  |  团购
您的位置: 青海省旅游网 / 规划 / 新闻动态 / 青海要闻

福州博爱医院中医看不孕好不好中华生活福州什么医院试管生儿子最好

来源:百科面诊    发布时间:2019年11月21日 21:00:26    编辑:admin         

William Jennings BryanImperialismdelivered 8 August 1900, Indianapolis, INAudio mp3 Excerpt Studio Reading of AddressMr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an earlyAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 2 of 16day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, andshall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democraticplatform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations atPharmacethis time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon theConferencquestion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.Leading SForumWhen I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between PharmaceDemocracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to sayBiotech Exthat all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that onthe important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by thoseinfluences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for theprotection of the rights of man.The War WGet The LaIn 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the News On Tdollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is Ongoing Wthe proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of A ReliableGod, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions todayRepublican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, ;equal rights to all and special privileges to none,;andHistory Nowthe doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government ;of the people, by theA new onlipeople and for the people,;are being disregarded and the instrumentalities ofjournal forgovernment are being used to advance the interests of those who are in aamp; studentsposition to secure favors from the Government.AmericanThe Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; ithas no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, itgives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when itpromises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property Globalrights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy Governmestrives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to Eventshis merits. Senior leveconferenceNo one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for Governmethe services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair Technologycompensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doinginjustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in theabsence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another theDemocratic party says ;Thou shalt not.;Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financiallypowerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them areassociated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name,are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of theirown party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselvesthat the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to thegreenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of thenations paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican partywas paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support aperpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust nowbeguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts,while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and moreobscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon thesmall expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objectionswhich are urged against a large increase in the permanent militaryestablishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nationwas less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans whoAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 3 of 16three years ago condemned ;forcible annexation; as immoral and even criminalare now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation.That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; howlarge a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policiesremains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right tocriticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation theyfound that both Lincoln and Clay asseWilliam Jennings BryanImperialismdelivered 8 August 1900, Indianapolis, INAudio mp3 Excerpt Studio Reading of AddressMr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an earlyAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 2 of 16day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, andshall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democraticplatform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations atPharmacethis time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon theConferencquestion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.Leading SForumWhen I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between PharmaceDemocracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to sayBiotech Exthat all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a www.gtcbio.cpredominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that onthe important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by thoseinfluences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for theprotection of the rights of man.The War WGet The LaIn 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the News On Tdollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is Ongoing Wthe proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of A ReliableGod, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is www.NewYorthe master, money the servant, but upon all important questions todayRepublican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, ;equal rights to all and special privileges to none,;andHistory Nowthe doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government ;of the people, by theA new onlipeople and for the people,;are being disregarded and the instrumentalities ofjournal forgovernment are being used to advance the interests of those who are in aamp; studentsposition to secure favors from the Government.Americanwww.historynThe Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; ithas no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, itgives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when itpromises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property Globalrights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy Governmestrives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to Eventshis merits. Senior leveconferenceNo one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for Governmethe services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair Technologycompensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it www.terrapinis at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doinginjustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in theabsence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another theDemocratic party says ;Thou shalt not.;Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financiallypowerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them areassociated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name,are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of theirown party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselvesthat the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to thegreenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of thenations paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican partywas paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support aperpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust nowbeguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts,while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and moreobscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon thesmall expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objectionswhich are urged against a large increase in the permanent militaryestablishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nationwas less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans whoAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 3 of 16three years ago condemned ;forcible annexation; as immoral and even criminalare now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation.That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; howlarge a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policiesremains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right tocriticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation theyfound that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize aPresident during the progress of the Mexican war.Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan fordealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted aplatform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion ofthose which involve the very structure of our government, the Republicanleaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of theirparty and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issuewhich they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When thepresident, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate,entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots ofCuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain apolitical advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of thecase must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in thesupport which they gave to the president. When the war was over and theRepublican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy oppositionat once manifested itself.When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized theindependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands tothe ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that manypreferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take thechance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of thiscountry.I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty andend the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expendituresand then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spainby a new treaty.In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take thisoccasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust theAmerican people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust theaccomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, ;Can aliensmake treaties easier than friends can make laws?; I believe that we are now in abetter position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we wouldhave been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issueis presented between a government by consent and a government by force, andimperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question issettled.If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have beenheld responsible for any international complications which might have arisenbefore the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion mayAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 4 of 16have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there neverwas any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is nodifference now as to the course to be pursued.The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinosaccording to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a monthbefore hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos onthe same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolutionand believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would haveprevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would haveended hostilities.If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsedbefore a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during thattime the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Baconresolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president,either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, itwould have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the Americanpeople free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeatedby the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this arepublican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editorsat once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification ofthe treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans haveaccused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos.This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently andimitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican partyought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races toprotest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Ourwhole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all whoare denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared tocensure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hateforeign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When heuttered that passionate appeal, ;Give me liberty or give me death,; he expresseda sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have usedwords so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Letthem censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choosebetween liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sinsof Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whoseGettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when thepresent advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes onand on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it werepossible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principlesset forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leaveits legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every humanheart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale ofcivilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider,not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate itseffects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 5 of 16Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or itsforts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spiritwithout planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism.Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those whowere fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to theWestern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. Wehave felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who werestruggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which ourpeople have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contestbetween human rights and arbitrary power.Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles ofGreece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression tothe universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested alively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress inSouth Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in thetriumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say aword in behalf of the Boers.Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England;the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. Thissympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in theprinciples of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims ofmonarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of theprinciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestigeand influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of populargovernment.Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuseimperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as asupporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with suchprecision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:;If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of everyAmerican, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.; And again hesaid: ;Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.;The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs asmuch from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchydiffers from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansionwhen expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land whichcan be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who arewilling to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts whichhave been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitutionfollowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distantterritory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force uponthe people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or ourlaws.Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it andwho have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify theappropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands wereuninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil.The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried tocolonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for threehundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people ofEuropean birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 6 of 16After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentiethof one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an armyof seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain hadasserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleetentered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in thePhilippines.A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a fewtraders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough tosupport the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its naturaland necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation ofthe Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the dominationof other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid,growth of our military establishment.That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republicanleaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message ofDecember 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standingarmy to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years thepresident asked for four times that many, and a Republican house ofrepresentatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had beensigned, and when no country was at war with the ed States.If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but notopenly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republicanparty by indorsing its policy at the polls?A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, ifaccompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is evera menace to a Republican form of government.The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change theideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts ofpeace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense uponits citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body ofprofessional soldiers.A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia aresufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the futureas in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from alloccupations at their countrys call and return to productive labor when theirservices are no longer required --men who fight when the country needs fightersand work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumesthat the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and wehave a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future statusof the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the bodypolitic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history thatamalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws andshaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been boldenough to advocate such a proposition.The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratificationof the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describesthe situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens withoutendangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? Ifthe Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that questionthe Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipinocannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic canhave no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force;he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation withoutAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 7 of 16representation.The Republican platform says that ;the largest measure of self-governmentconsistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (theFilipinos) by law.; This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes itsvery existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest againstgovernment without consent and taxation without representation. In what respectdoes the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by theEnglish Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a goodgovernment to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to hispeople? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should havethe largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Englishduties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans thelargest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanishduties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may besummed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what hebelieves to be a good government; in a republic the people secure forthemselves what they believe to be a good government.The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself uponthe ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity ofthe people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is tobe given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteenmonths elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment ofcongress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippinesituation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islandswherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican partyhesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclosethe radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those whocontrol the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the PuertoRican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American peopleare brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied theguarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resistedour authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain dutytoward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those sameinfluences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this countrywhere the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the sideof the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the lastfew years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporationswhich are waiting to exploit the islands?Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States,and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, whilethe thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The PuertoRico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution isconfined to the forty-five states.The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant toboth the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system ofgovernment for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leadersof a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treatmillions of people as mere ;possessions; and deal with them unrestrained by theconstitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from theancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatelyenters upon a career of empire.The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chiefsecurity a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the sameAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 8 of 16constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizenof a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interestssacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil ofthe colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or byconquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people?If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Willthe Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth ismolded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator itbecomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their justpowers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title topeople, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spains title bytreaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with ourideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them tofight against Spain, we disputed Spains title. If we buy Spains title we are notinnocent purchasers.There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of theFilipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fightingfor their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example ofturpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of animperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. Butduty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in anyemergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It isour duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great orlittle value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where thehuman being lives or to what race or class he belongs.Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe boththe human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws tonations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson,than whom there is no higher political authority, said:;I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.;Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacybequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea ineven stronger language when he said:;Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. Ahighwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.;Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals,but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those whojoin it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it wastrue, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans ;are and ofright ought to be free and independent; (language taken from the Declaration ofIndependence), it is equally true that the Filipinos ;are and of right ought to befree and independent.;The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to theed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race orraces to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous votedeclared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still aliveand applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights ofthe Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to libertyand that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if theCoffeehousAds by GAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 9 of 16Filipinos ;are and of right ought to be free and independent,; what right have weto force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty canbe ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are oncedetermined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty ofSpain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England torespect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties neverclash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can itbe our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love libertywell enough to fight for it?A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of thebattle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written ;All ye are brethren.;Let us hope for the coming day when human life --which when once destroyedcannot be restored --will be so sacred that it will never be taken except whennecessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about tobe committed.It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make itnecessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands.I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. Noobligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can requirethe abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrinesagainst which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that ourobligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligationwhich we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in thePhilippines or desire to trade there.It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that,therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in anofficial report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable ofself-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon aknowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relativeadvancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people ofSouth America to self-government said:;It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Theirpartisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannotcommand universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particularnations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. Icontend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose thathe has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled onby kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.;Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government,but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people thecapacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right toseize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force --brute force --theonly foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing tobelieve that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then leftthem thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention ofEuropean nations.Republicans ask, ;Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in thePhilippines?; The same question might have been asked, when the Americanflag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but thetourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by theed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over ourdead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrewto the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years thepeople of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independenceand self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 10 of 16government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendlyrepublics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had theformer been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as;benevolent assimilation.;;Can we not govern colonies?;we are asked. The question is not what we cando, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but itmust accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way,the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever itdesires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it ownconduct.The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He candisregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has beentaught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws ofsociety and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make hisvery existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and motherin sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, ;The wages of sin isdeath.;And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn thetraditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests;it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it canconquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property andkill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishmentdecreed for the violation of human rights.;Would we t in the paths of tyranny,Nor reckon the tyrants cost?Who taketh anothers libertyHis freedom is also lost.Would we win as the strong have ever won,Make y to pay the debt,American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 11 of 16For the God who reigned over BabylonIs the God who is reigning yet.;Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the bettereducation of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonialpolicy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educatedFilipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made theleast resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay,we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration ofIndependence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for ourinconsistency.The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon adefense of imperialism are:First-That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world powerand enter into international politics.Second-That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orientmake it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.Third-That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonialpolicy.Fourth-That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation hastaken.The first argument is addrest to the nationrsquo;s pride and the second to the nationrsquo;spocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for thepartisan.It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century thisnation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potentinfluence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done moreto shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the worldcombined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated othershave been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty otherhave fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutionshave been adopted.The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, hasbeen the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made thisnation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as noother nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onwardmarch of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside theomnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. Iwould not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires thathave risen and fallen since time began.The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presentedthe pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:;We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solelyon account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacredtrust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty toourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By everylegitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean tostimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.;American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 12 of 16This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can berightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase tradeby force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When LordHowe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution werenecessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels,Franklin replied:;To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoevervaluable, is an object for which men may justly spill each others blood; that thetrue and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness andcheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal tothe expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider thiswar against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.;I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who wouldput a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquestupon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansionof trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but itis not willing to make merchandise of human blood.But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coalingstation in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity andsuch a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on tradetoday with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded morerapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan orChina, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics ofCentral and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary tohave any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order totrade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must betaken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover theexpense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that theexpense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable tothe ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring deadsoldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon thefranchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would befixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to thevast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditurewithout return and risk without reward.Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systemswhich place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of theexpenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit fromimperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboringman will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States;the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor inthe Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from theviolence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methodsof imperialism are applied to our own government.It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to notethe approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism andimperialism.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 13 of 16The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely tobe used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religiousargument. If what has been termed the ;gunpowder gospel;were urged againstthe Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of theFilipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but theprinciple involved is one of much wider application and challenges seriousconsideration.The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief thatProvidence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, tothe exultation of the minister who said that we ought to ;thrash the natives(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,;and that ;every bullet sent, everycannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.;We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply iteverywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach theheat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the Americanflag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon Americansoil.If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings ofChrist, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite andproselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove hisauthority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, ;Go ye into all theworld and preach the gospel to every creature,;has no Gatling gun attachment.When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him,some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven toavenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: ;Ye know not whatmanner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy menrsquo;s lives,but to save them.;Suppose he had said: ;We will thrash them until theyunderstand who we are,;how different would have been the history ofChristianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine ofimperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ;Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself.;Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not theexploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionaryrecently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because hisassailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty;let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies,they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truthand their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing thebreastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be knownthat they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of othernations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcomegiven to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to themissionaries of any other nation.The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it hadanything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manilamade the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make itimperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shedat San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubansindependence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does notcompel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 14 of 16floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down whenthe flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousandtimes that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of anempire.There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is setforth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to theAmerican people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will conveneCongress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend animmediate declaration of the nationrsquo;s purpose, first, to establish a stable form ofgovernment in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stableform of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos aswe have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect theFilipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as wehave protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by theMonroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by theguardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantageof our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of acentury the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet ithas imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us inthe war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitiousdesigns of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part ofus or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to givethem independence and guard them against molestation from without.When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fallback upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, nomatter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles ofgovernment. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinctionbetween right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victimsof circumstance.Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to opposeerror, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that thedestiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked onthe experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washingtonrsquo;sdefinition of destiny from the Republican definition!The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washingtonbelieved that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of therepublican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to Americanhands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the handsof its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope ofhumanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influenceshould be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for thisnation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea ofthe nationrsquo;s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself tocontribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge thedebt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they haveso generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy thehigh office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder ofmy days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controllingpurpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courageand sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and thepast --a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to theAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 15 of 16possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundationstones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth --arepublic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evidentpropositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed withinalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure theserights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all toearnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for aneighbors injury --a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in whichno one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires allaround are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments --a republic Art amp; Sciewhose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic Coachingincreasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the Coachingproblems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- ICF Accreda republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example World Classand gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic Training-Tgradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the worlds progress rted and exercised the right to criticize aPresident during the progress of the Mexican war.Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan fordealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted aplatform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion ofthose which involve the very structure of our government, the Republicanleaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of theirparty and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issuewhich they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When thepresident, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate,entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots ofCuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain apolitical advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of thecase must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in thesupport which they gave to the president. When the war was over and theRepublican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy oppositionat once manifested itself.When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized theindependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands tothe ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that manypreferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take thechance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of thiscountry.I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty andend the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expendituresand then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spainby a new treaty.In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take thisoccasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust theAmerican people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust theaccomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, ;Can aliensmake treaties easier than friends can make laws?; I believe that we are now in abetter position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we wouldhave been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issueis presented between a government by consent and a government by force, andimperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question issettled.If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have beenheld responsible for any international complications which might have arisenbefore the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion mayAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 4 of 16have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there neverwas any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is nodifference now as to the course to be pursued.The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinosaccording to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a monthbefore hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos onthe same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolutionand believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would haveprevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would haveended hostilities.If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsedbefore a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during thattime the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Baconresolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president,either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, itwould have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the Americanpeople free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeatedby the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this arepublican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editorsat once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification ofthe treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans haveaccused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos.This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently andimitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican partyought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races toprotest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Ourwhole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all whoare denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared tocensure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hateforeign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When heuttered that passionate appeal, ;Give me liberty or give me death,; he expresseda sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have usedwords so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Letthem censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choosebetween liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sinsof Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whoseGettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when thepresent advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes onand on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it werepossible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principlesset forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leaveits legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every humanheart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale ofcivilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider,not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate itseffects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 5 of 16Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or itsforts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spiritwithout planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism.Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those whowere fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to theWestern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. Wehave felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who werestruggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which ourpeople have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contestbetween human rights and arbitrary power.Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles ofGreece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression tothe universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested alively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress inSouth Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in thetriumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say aword in behalf of the Boers.Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England;the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. Thissympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in theprinciples of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims ofmonarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of theprinciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestigeand influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of populargovernment.Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuseimperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as asupporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with suchprecision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:;If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of everyAmerican, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.; And again hesaid: ;Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.;The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs asmuch from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchydiffers from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansionwhen expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land whichcan be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who arewilling to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts whichhave been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitutionfollowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distantterritory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force uponthe people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or ourlaws.Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it andwho have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify theappropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands wereuninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil.The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried tocolonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for threehundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people ofEuropean birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 6 of 16After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentiethof one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an armyof seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain hadasserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleetentered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in thePhilippines.A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a fewtraders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough tosupport the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its naturaland necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation ofthe Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the dominationof other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid,growth of our military establishment.That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republicanleaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message ofDecember 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standingarmy to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years thepresident asked for four times that many, and a Republican house ofrepresentatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had beensigned, and when no country was at war with the ed States.If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but notopenly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republicanparty by indorsing its policy at the polls?A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, ifaccompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is evera menace to a Republican form of government.The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change theideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts ofpeace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense uponits citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body ofprofessional soldiers.A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia aresufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the futureas in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from alloccupations at their countrys call and return to productive labor when theirservices are no longer required --men who fight when the country needs fightersand work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumesthat the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and wehave a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future statusof the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the bodypolitic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history thatamalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws andshaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been boldenough to advocate such a proposition.The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratificationof the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describesthe situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens withoutendangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? Ifthe Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that questionthe Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipinocannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic canhave no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force;he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation withoutAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 7 of 16representation.The Republican platform says that ;the largest measure of self-governmentconsistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (theFilipinos) by law.; This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes itsvery existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest againstgovernment without consent and taxation without representation. In what respectdoes the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by theEnglish Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a goodgovernment to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to hispeople? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should havethe largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Englishduties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans thelargest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanishduties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may besummed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what hebelieves to be a good government; in a republic the people secure forthemselves what they believe to be a good government.The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself uponthe ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity ofthe people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is tobe given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteenmonths elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment ofcongress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippinesituation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islandswherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican partyhesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclosethe radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those whocontrol the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the PuertoRican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American peopleare brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied theguarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resistedour authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain dutytoward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those sameinfluences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this countrywhere the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the sideof the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the lastfew years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporationswhich are waiting to exploit the islands?Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States,and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, whilethe thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The PuertoRico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution isconfined to the forty-five states.The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant toboth the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system ofgovernment for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leadersof a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treatmillions of people as mere ;possessions; and deal with them unrestrained by theconstitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from theancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatelyenters upon a career of empire.The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chiefsecurity a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the sameAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 8 of 16constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizenof a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interestssacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil ofthe colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or byconquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people?If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Willthe Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth ismolded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator itbecomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their justpowers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title topeople, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spains title bytreaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with ourideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them tofight against Spain, we disputed Spains title. If we buy Spains title we are notinnocent purchasers.There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of theFilipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fightingfor their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example ofturpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of animperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. Butduty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in anyemergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It isour duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great orlittle value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where thehuman being lives or to what race or class he belongs.Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe boththe human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws tonations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson,than whom there is no higher political authority, said:;I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.;Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacybequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea ineven stronger language when he said:;Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. Ahighwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.;Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals,but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those whojoin it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it wastrue, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans ;are and ofright ought to be free and independent; (language taken from the Declaration ofIndependence), it is equally true that the Filipinos ;are and of right ought to befree and independent.;The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to theed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race orraces to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous votedeclared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still aliveand applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights ofthe Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to libertyand that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if theCoffeehousAds by GAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 9 of 16Filipinos ;are and of right ought to be free and independent,; what right have weto force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty canbe ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are oncedetermined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty ofSpain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England torespect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties neverclash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can itbe our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love libertywell enough to fight for it?A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of thebattle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written ;All ye are brethren.;Let us hope for the coming day when human life --which when once destroyedcannot be restored --will be so sacred that it will never be taken except whennecessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about tobe committed.It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make itnecessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands.I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. Noobligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can requirethe abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrinesagainst which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that ourobligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligationwhich we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in thePhilippines or desire to trade there.It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that,therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in anofficial report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable ofself-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon aknowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relativeadvancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people ofSouth America to self-government said:;It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Theirpartisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannotcommand universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particularnations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. Icontend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose thathe has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled onby kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.;Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government,but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people thecapacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right toseize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force --brute force --theonly foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing tobelieve that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then leftthem thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention ofEuropean nations.Republicans ask, ;Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in thePhilippines?; The same question might have been asked, when the Americanflag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but thetourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by theed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over ourdead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrewto the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years thepeople of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independenceand self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 10 of 16government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendlyrepublics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had theformer been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as;benevolent assimilation.;;Can we not govern colonies?;we are asked. The question is not what we cando, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but itmust accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way,the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever itdesires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it ownconduct.The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He candisregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has beentaught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws ofsociety and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make hisvery existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and motherin sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, ;The wages of sin isdeath.;And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn thetraditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests;it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it canconquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property andkill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishmentdecreed for the violation of human rights.;Would we t in the paths of tyranny,Nor reckon the tyrants cost?Who taketh anothers libertyHis freedom is also lost.Would we win as the strong have ever won,Make y to pay the debt,American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 11 of 16For the God who reigned over BabylonIs the God who is reigning yet.;Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the bettereducation of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonialpolicy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educatedFilipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made theleast resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay,we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration ofIndependence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for ourinconsistency.The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon adefense of imperialism are:First-That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world powerand enter into international politics.Second-That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orientmake it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.Third-That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonialpolicy.Fourth-That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation hastaken.The first argument is addrest to the nationrsquo;s pride and the second to the nationrsquo;spocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for thepartisan.It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century thisnation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potentinfluence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done moreto shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the worldcombined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated othershave been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty otherhave fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutionshave been adopted.The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, hasbeen the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made thisnation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as noother nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onwardmarch of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside theomnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. Iwould not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires thathave risen and fallen since time began.The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presentedthe pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:;We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solelyon account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacredtrust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty toourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By everylegitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean tostimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.;American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 12 of 16This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can berightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase tradeby force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When LordHowe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution werenecessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels,Franklin replied:;To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoevervaluable, is an object for which men may justly spill each others blood; that thetrue and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness andcheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal tothe expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider thiswar against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.;I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who wouldput a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquestupon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansionof trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but itis not willing to make merchandise of human blood.But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coalingstation in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity andsuch a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on tradetoday with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded morerapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan orChina, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics ofCentral and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary tohave any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order totrade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must betaken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover theexpense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that theexpense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable tothe ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring deadsoldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon thefranchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would befixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to thevast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditurewithout return and risk without reward.Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systemswhich place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of theexpenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit fromimperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboringman will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States;the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor inthe Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from theviolence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methodsof imperialism are applied to our own government.It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to notethe approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism andimperialism.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 13 of 16The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely tobe used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religiousargument. If what has been termed the ;gunpowder gospel;were urged againstthe Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of theFilipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but theprinciple involved is one of much wider application and challenges seriousconsideration.The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief thatProvidence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, tothe exultation of the minister who said that we ought to ;thrash the natives(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,;and that ;every bullet sent, everycannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.;We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply iteverywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach theheat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the Americanflag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon Americansoil.If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings ofChrist, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite andproselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove hisauthority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, ;Go ye into all theworld and preach the gospel to every creature,;has no Gatling gun attachment.When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him,some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven toavenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: ;Ye know not whatmanner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy menrsquo;s lives,but to save them.;Suppose he had said: ;We will thrash them until theyunderstand who we are,;how different would have been the history ofChristianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine ofimperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ;Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself.;Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not theexploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionaryrecently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because hisassailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty;let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies,they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truthand their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing thebreastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be knownthat they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of othernations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcomegiven to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to themissionaries of any other nation.The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it hadanything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manilamade the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make itimperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shedat San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubansindependence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does notcompel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 14 of 16floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down whenthe flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousandtimes that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of anempire.There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is setforth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to theAmerican people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will conveneCongress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend animmediate declaration of the nationrsquo;s purpose, first, to establish a stable form ofgovernment in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stableform of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos aswe have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect theFilipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as wehave protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by theMonroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by theguardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantageof our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of acentury the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet ithas imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us inthe war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitiousdesigns of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part ofus or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to givethem independence and guard them against molestation from without.When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fallback upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, nomatter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles ofgovernment. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinctionbetween right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victimsof circumstance.Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to opposeerror, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that thedestiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked onthe experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washingtonrsquo;sdefinition of destiny from the Republican definition!The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washingtonbelieved that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of therepublican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to Americanhands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the handsof its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope ofhumanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influenceshould be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for thisnation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea ofthe nationrsquo;s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself tocontribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge thedebt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they haveso generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy thehigh office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder ofmy days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controllingpurpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courageand sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and thepast --a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to theAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 15 of 16possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundationstones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth --arepublic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evidentpropositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed withinalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure theserights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all toearnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for aneighbors injury --a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in whichno one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires allaround are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments --a republic Art amp; Sciewhose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic Coachingincreasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the Coachingproblems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- ICF Accreda republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example World Classand gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic Training-Tgradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the worlds progress /201205/182152。

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Monday night, I will address the American people about the state of our union. I will report that over the last seven years, we've made great progress on important issues at home and abroad. I will also report that we have unfinished business before us, and we must work together to get it done. In my speech, I will lay out a full plate of issues for Congress to address in the year ahead. Two of these issues require immediate attention. First is the economy. I know many of you are worried about the risk of an economic downturn, because of the instability in the housing and financial markets. You should know that while economic growth has slowed in recent months, the foundation for long-term growth remains solid. And I believe that with swift action, we can give our economy the boost it needs to continue expanding and creating new jobs for our citizens. On Thursday, my Administration reached a bipartisan agreement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner on an economic growth package. This package will deliver direct tax relief to hardworking Americans. It will also include incentives for businesses -- including small businesses -- to make new investments this year. I ask the House and Senate to enact this package into law as soon as possible. And while I understand the desire to add provisions from both the left and the right, it would be a mistake to undermine this important bipartisan agreement. By working together, we can provide our economy with a shot in the arm when we need it most. The other urgent issue before Congress is a matter of national security. Congress needs to provide our intelligence professionals with the tools and flexibility they need to protect America from attack. In August, Congress passed a bill that strengthened our ability to monitor terrorist communications. The problem is that Congress set this law to expire on February 1st. That is next Friday. If this law expires, it will become harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to infiltrate our country, harder for us to uncover terrorist plots, and harder to prevent attacks on the American people. Congress is now considering a bipartisan bill that will allow our professionals to maintain the vital flow of intelligence on terrorist threats. It would protect the freedoms of Americans, while making sure we do not extend those same protections to terrorists overseas. It would provide liability protection to companies now facing billion-dollar lawsuits because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our Nation following the 9/11 attacks. I call on Congress to pass this legislation quickly. We need to know who our enemies are and what they are plotting. And we cannot afford to wait until after an attack to put the pieces together. When I go before Congress on Monday, I will speak more about how we can keep our economy strong and our people safe. I am confident that we can work together to meet our responsibilities in these areas -- and leave our children a stronger and more prosperous America. Thank you for listening. END 200806/40866。

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend, I will join millions of Americans in one of our favorite national pastimes: fishing. I'm going to be on the Chesapeake Bay. For those who love fishing, the most important thing is not the size of your catch but the enjoyment of the great outdoors. Every year, millions of Americans grab their tackle boxes and head out to their favorite fishing holes. No matter where they drop their lines, they build memories that last a lifetime. And in the process, they contribute billions of dollars to our economy. My Administration is committed to protecting the environment that our sportsmen depend on. We believe that to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century, we must bring together conservationists, fishermen, sportsmen, local leaders, and Federal, State, and tribal officials in a spirit of cooperation. I call this "cooperative conservation." Instead of the old environmental debates that pit one group against another, we're moving our country toward a system where citizens and government can come together to achieve meaningful results for our environment. One way we are practicing cooperative conservation is through our efforts to preserve our fisheries. Almost three years ago, I announced an ocean action plan to promote an ethic of responsible stewardship that will make our waterways cleaner, healthier, and more productive. Last year, I was proud to establish a marine conservation area in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This is the single largest conservation area in the history of our Nation -- and the largest protected marine area in the world. We're also working to clean up marine debris and to address harmful fishing practices in international waters that destroy corals and other vital habitats. Earlier this year, I signed a law that will help end overfishing and create market-based regulations to replenish our fish stocks so we can keep them strong for generations to come. Prior to my fishing trip I am signing an Executive Order that will preserve two of our Nation's most popular recreational fish -- striped bass and red drum. These two species were once abundant in American waters, but their stocks have been overfished. The Executive Order I sign will protect striped bass and red drum caught in Federal waters by moving to prohibit their commercial sale. It will promote more accurate scientific records about fish population levels. And it will help the Federal Government work with State and local officials to find innovative ways to ensure these two species are conserved for future generations. As we work to protect our Nation's fisheries, we're also working to help migratory birds thrive. Each year, more than 800 species of birds make their way south for the winter, and then return home to their breeding grounds the following spring. Their ability to survive these long journeys depends on stopover habitat. Unfortunately, some of the areas where birds once stopped and rested on their great migrations have been lost to development. So we're working to protect these species by restoring or replacing their stopover habitats. One key way we're doing this is by expanding our National Wildlife Refuges, creating new ones, and restoring and improving hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat for migratory birds. At the same time, we're bringing together Federal, State, and tribal agencies to work with private groups and corporations to improve habitat on private lands. The Department of the Interior is also working with cities across our Nation to build stopover habitats in urban areas. And this weekend I'm announcing new policies -- including new efforts with Mexico to foster greater habitat conservation for the migratory birds. America's national parks also play a vital role in our conservation efforts. Earlier this week, Laura spoke at the first-ever Leadership Summit of the National Park Foundation. She discussed the National Parks Centennial Initiative -- a public-private partnership to raise funds for the park system's 100th anniversary in 2016. This initiative will support many vital projects to improve habitats for local wildlife -- including some that will directly benefit birds. As Americans, we've been given a beautiful country to live in, and we have an obligation to be good stewards of the environment. With the cooperative conservation policies we have put in place, we show our commitment to preserving our Nation's heritage. By making responsible choices today, we will ensure that our children and grandchildren will enjoy a cleaner and more vibrant environment. Thank you for listening. 200801/23815。

【演讲文稿】Recently, there have been signs that the economy is picking up steam. Last month, we saw the strongest job growth in five years, and have added more than three-quarters of a million private sector jobs in just three months. But there are still too many Americans who are either looking for work, or struggling to pay the bills and make the mortgage. Paychecks aren’t getting any bigger, but the cost of everything from groceries to college tuition keeps on rising. Without a doubt, one of the biggest burdens over the last few months has been the price of gasoline. In many places, gas is now more than a gallon, meaning that you could be paying more than to fill up your tank.These spikes in gas prices are often temporary, and while there are no quick fixes to the problem, there are a few steps we should take that make good sense.First, we should make sure that no one is taking advantage of consumers at the pump. That’s why we’ve launched a task force led by the Attorney General that has one job: rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activity by traders and speculators. Second, we should increase safe and responsible oil production here at home. Last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003. But I believe that we should expand oil production in America – even as we increase safety and environmental standards. To do this, I am directing the Department of Interior to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, while respecting sensitive areas, and to speed up the evaluation of oil and gas resources in the mid and south Atlantic. We plan to lease new areas in the Gulf of Mexico as well, and work to create new incentives for industry to develop their unused leases both on and offshore.We’re also taking steps to give companies time to meet higher safety standards when it comes to exploration and drilling. That’s why my Administration is extending drilling leases in areas of the Gulf that were impacted by the temporary moratorium, as well as certain areas off the coast of Alaska. And to streamline that permitting process, I am establishing a new team to coordinate work on Alaska drilling permits.Finally, the third step we should take is to eliminate the taxpayer subsidies we give to oil and gas companies. In the last few months, the biggest oil companies made about billion in profits each week. And yet, they get billion in taxpayer subsidies each year. Four billion dollars at a time when Americans can barely fill up their tanks. Four billion dollars at a time when we’re trying to reduce our deficit. This isn’t fair, it makes no sense. Before I was President, the CEOs of these companies even admitted that the tax subsidies made no sense. Well, next week, there is a vote in Congress to end these oil company giveaways once and for all. And I hope Democrats and Republicans come together and get this done. The American people shouldn’t be subsidizing oil companies at a time when they’re making near-record profits. As a nation, we should be investing in the clean, renewable sources of energy that are the ultimate solution to high-gas prices. That’s why we’re investing in clean energy technology, helping businesses that manufacture solar panels and wind turbines, and making sure that our cars and trucks can go further on a tank of gas – a step that could save families as much as ,000 at the pump.These are investments worth making – investments that will save us money, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect the health and safety of our planet. That’s an energy policy for the future, and it’s what I’ll be fighting for in the weeks and months to come.Thanks.201105/136908。

演讲文本US President's second-term inaugural speech (January 20,2005) U.S. President George W. Bush delivers his inauguration speech on Capitol Hill in Washington January 20, 2005. Bush's inaugural vow to sp freedom and stand with the oppressed against tyranny was not meant to signal a shift in U.S. foreign policy but to elaborate on a long-term goal, a senior U.S. official said on Saturday. (Jason Reed/Reuters) Listen to the story:THE PRESIDENT: Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed. At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire. We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the ed States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm. We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty. Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it. Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the ed States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. And all the allies of the ed States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat. Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens: From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world. A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice. All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character. America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty. In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal. In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever. In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time. From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause? These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free. We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty. When the Declaration of Independence was first in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are y for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom. May God bless you, and may He watch over the ed States of America. 200603/5029。

mp4 视频下载 WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Celebrates Independence Day and the American SpiritRemarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address The White HouseJuly 4, Hello and Happy Fourth of July, everybody. This weekend is a time to get together with family and friends, kick back, and enjoy a little time off. And I hope that’s exactly what all of you do. But I also want to take a moment today to reflect on what I believe is the meaning of this distinctly American holiday. Today, we are called to remember not only the day our country was born – we are also called to remember the indomitable spirit of the first American citizens who made that day possible. We are called to remember how unlikely it was that our American experiment would succeed at all; that a small band of patriots would declare independence from a powerful empire; and that they would form, in the new world, what the old world had never known – a government of, by, and for the people. That unyielding spirit is what defines us as Americans. It is what led generations of pioneers to blaze a westward trail. It is what led my grandparents’ generation to persevere in the face of a Depression and triumph in the face of tyranny. It is what led generations of American workers to build an industrial economy unrivalled around the world. It is what has always led us, as a people, not to wilt or cower at a difficult moment, but to face down any trial and rise to any challenge, understanding that each of us has a hand in writing America’s destiny. That is the spirit we are called to show once more. We are facing an array of challenges on a scale unseen in our time. We are waging two wars. We are battling a deep recession. And our economy – and our nation itself – are endangered by festering problems we have kicked down the road for far too long: spiraling health care costs; inadequate schools; and a dependence on foreign oil. Meeting these extraordinary challenges will require an extraordinary effort on the part of every American. And that is an effort we cannot defer any longer. Now is the time to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity. Now is the time to revamp our education system, demand more from teachers, parents, and students alike, and build schools that prepare every child in America to outcompete any worker in the world. Now is the time to reform an unsustainable health care system that is imposing crushing costs on families, businesses, large and small, and state and federal budgets. We need to protect what works, fix what’s broken, and bring down costs for all Americans. No more talk. No more delay. Health care reform must happen this year. And now is the time to meet our energy challenge – one of the greatest challenges we have ever confronted as a people or as a planet. For the sake of our economy and our children, we must build on the historic bill passed by the House of Representatives, and make clean energy the profitable kind of energy so that we can end our dependence on foreign oil and reclaim America’s future. These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has aly failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals. These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the ed States of America. We are not a people who fear the future. We are a people who make it. And on this July 4th, we need to summon that spirit once more. We need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall two hundred and thirty-three years ago today. That is how this generation of Americans will make its mark on history. That is how we will make the most of this extraordinary moment. And that is how we will write the next chapter in the great American story. Thank you, and Happy Fourth of July.07/76636。