Mr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an early day, and in a
more formal manner accept the nomination which you tender, and I shall at that time discuss
the various questions covered by the Democratic platform. It may not be out of place, however,
to submit a few observations at this time upon the general character of the contest before us and
upon the question which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.
When I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest between Democracy on the
one hand and
plutocracy on the other I do not mean to say that 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 on the important issues of the day the Republican party is
dominated by those
influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for
the protection of the
rights of man.
In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican party believed in the man and
the dollar, but that in
case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the
proper relation which should
exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the
handiwork of man,
is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon
all important
questions today Republican legislation tends to make money the master and
man the servant.
The maxim of Jefferson, "equal rights to all and special privileges to
none," and the doctrine of
Lincoln that this should be a government "of the people, by the people
and for the people," are
being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used
to advance the
interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the Government.
The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth;
it has no desire
to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, it gives to
every citizen the greatest
possible stimulus to honest toil when it promises him protection in the
enjoyment of the
proceeds of his labor. Property rights are most secure when human rights
are most respected.
Democracy strives for civilization in which every member of society will
share according to his
merits.
No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation
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 doing injustice to another. To him who
would, either through
class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass
upon the rights of another
the Democratic party says "Thou shalt not."
Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financially
powerful number
who really profit by Republican policies; but with them are associated
a large number who,
because of their attachment to their party name, are giving their support
to doctrines
antagonistic to the former teachings of their own party.
Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselves
that the gold
standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to the greenback
are now seeking
an excuse for giving national banks control of the nation's paper money;
Republicans who used
to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are
now looking for reasons
to support a perpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred
a trust now
beguile 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 more obscure; Republicans
who, in
times past, congratulated the country upon the small expense of our standing
army, are now
making light of the objections which are urged against a large increase
in the permanent
military establishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when
the nation was less
powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans who three
years ago
condemned "forcible annexation" as immoral and even criminal are now sure
that it is both
immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That partisanship has
already blinded
many to present dangers is certain; how large a portion of the Republican
party can be drawn
over to the new policies remains to be seen.
For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right
to criticise the
Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation they found
that both Lincoln and
Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticise a President during the
progress of the Mexican
war.
Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive
plan for dealing with the
Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted a platform the larger
part of which was
devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.
In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion
of those which
involve the very structure of our government, the Republican leaders give
new evidence of their
abandonment of the earlier ideals of their party and of their complete
subserviency to pecuniary
considerations.
But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching
issue which they have
deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When the president, 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 of Cuba, the country, without regard to
party, applauded.
Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily
gain a political
advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of the case
must soon end in a
complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they
gave to the
president. When the war was over and the Republican leaders began to suggest
the propriety of
a colonial policy opposition at once manifested itself.
When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized
the independence
of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands to the
United States, the menace
of imperialism became so apparent that many preferred to reject the treaty
and risk the ills that
might follow rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of the
treaty by the
independent action of this country.
I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty
and end the war,
release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures and then
give the Filipinos the
independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.
In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take
this occasion to
restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the
American people to give
independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that
purpose to diplomacy
with an unfriendly nation.
Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, "Can aliens
make treaties easier
than friends can make laws?" I believe that we are now in a better position
to wage a successful
contest against imperialism than we would have been had the treaty been
rejected. With the
treaty ratified a clean-cut issue is presented between a government by
consent and a
government by force, and imperialists must bear the responsibility for
all that happens until the
question is settled.
If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have
been held responsible
for any international complications which might have arisen before the
ratification of another
treaty. But whatever difference of opinion may have existed as to the best
method of opposing
a colonial policy, there never was any difference as to the great importance
of the question and
there is no difference now as to the course to be pursued.
The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the
Filipinos according to
American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a month before hostilities
broke out at
Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos on the same terms that it
was promised to the
Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption prior
to the breaking out of
hostilities would have prevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any
subsequent time would
have ended hostilities.
If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily
elapsed before a new
treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during that time the
question would have
been agitating the public mind. If the Bacon resolution 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, it would have taken the question of imperialism out of politics
and left the American
people free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was
defeated by the vote of
the republican vice-president, and from that time to this a republican
congress has refused to
take any action whatever in the matter.
When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and republican
editors at once sought
to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification of the treaty,
and, during the
progress of the war, the same republicans have accused the opponents of
imperialism of giving
encouragement to the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.
School House Books, Inc. has made a careful effort to make proper acknowledgment for any reference or link to copyrighted materials. Any error of omission is purely inadvertent and will be corrected immediately upon receipt of a written notice from the company to The Permissions Department, School House Books, Inc., 921 Pembina Trail, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501.
School House Books Online Services
Great Teaching Ideas Series
*AP* and Advanced Placement Program* are registered
trademarks of the College Entrance Examination Board, which was not involved
in the production of, and does not endorse this site.*
School House Books, Inc. encourages teachers to share lesson plans, favorite books, favorite web sites, or other materials that have worked. Double-click on the submit_an_article.gif below. Paste the lesson copied from your word processor (or type in the information of any kind that you want to share) into the new email message that appears. (Please include your Name, School, City and State. We have members from all over the United States and it is nice to know where you are teaching. Also, if you include your email, people can send questions or comments as well.) Finally--Send the message. Your submission will be published on the net at http://schoolhousebooksweb.com , usually within twenty-four hours.
| Contact Us | Drama Library | Free Book Offer |
| K12 Lessons and Web Sites | Language Guide| Library of Autobiographies |
| Library of Criticism and Philosophy | Library of Non-Fiction | Literature Guide |
| Magazine, Newspapers, and the Media | Make Your Own Web Site |
| Novels for Literature | Novels for Composition | Poetry|
| Professional Journal for High School English Materials |
| Professional Journal for English AP* Language and Composition Materials |
| Professional Journal for English AP* Literature and Composition Materials |
| READER | Reference Essentials | Short Stories for Composition |
| Short Stories for Literature | Speeches and Essays | WRITER |
© Copyright January 2003 School House Books, Inc.
