The American Sentinel 14
January 26, 1899
“Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 4, p. 49.
HE who will not stand by the Declaration of Independence, will fall by dependence upon man. AMS January 26, 1899, page 49.1
AMS JESUS CHRIST never attempted to dictate to Cesar, so must his professed representatives of this day never attempt to be dictators in politics. AMS January 26, 1899, page 49.2
ANY tyrant is willing that people should be free and happy in the way he himself prescribes. AMS January 26, 1899, page 49.3
THE despot lives by governing other people; the patriot lives by governing himself. AMS January 26, 1899, page 49.4
ONE nation cannot declare independence for another. Each nation must declare and maintain independence for itself. AMS January 26, 1899, page 49.5
[Inset.] SOME OF THE GLORIES(?) OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM. TO THE Filipino, it means the privilege of doing what a foreign military governor, with the advice of the papacy, tells him to do, and not only doing what he is told to do, but doing it as he is told to do it. It means to him the enjoyment(?) of what has been aptly termed “canned liberty,“—the liberty of a dominating power for a subject people—such liberty precisely as King George III. offered the American colonies. To the American workingman, on the other hand, it means heavy burdens to be borne, in the shape of bills for a great army and navy, for a larger pension list, for extensive fortifications in the new possessions, and for the cost of meddling in the political quarrels of the Eastern Hemisphere. These are some of the glories(?) of this policy, and others are set forth in this issue of the AMERICAN SENTINEL. AMS January 26, 1899, page 49.6
“Second-Class Americans” American Sentinel 14, 4, p. 50.
THE use of this ominous expression has come to be warranted, prospectively at least, by conditions which exist to-day in the United States. Upon this point the eminent scholar and deep-thinker, Carl Schurz, than whom no man better understands American institutions, in an address before the convocation of the University of Chicago, said:— AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.1
“If we do adopt such a system [the system of subjected provinces], then we shall, for the first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two kinds of Americans—Americans of the first class, who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the Government in accordance with out old constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by the Americans of the first class, through congressional legislation and the action of the national executive—not to speak of individual ‘masters’ arrogating to themselves powers beyond the law. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.2
“This will be a difference no better—nay, rather somewhat worse—than that which a century and a half ago still existed between Englishmen of the first and Englishmen of the second class, the first represented by King George and the British parliament, and the second by the American colonists. This difference called forth that great pean of human liberty, the American Declaration of Independence—a document which, I regret to say, seems, owing to the intoxication of conquest, to have lost much of its charm among some of our fellow-citizens.” AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.3
When there are Americans of the second class in Porto Rico and the Philippines, it will not be long till there will be Americans and the second class in the United States, and that too among people of Anglo-Saxon blood. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.4
When the distinction of first class and second class is allowed among Americans upon a basis of difference in race the like distinction will soon find a basis in differences of condition, as for instance, the difference between the man who has wealth, and the day laborer. There is too much distinction, socially and politically, made upon this basis already. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.5
Are you willing to become an American of the second class? And if not, are you willing for all Americans to be of the first class, so far as concerns their individual freedom? AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.6
“The Reason Why” American Sentinel 14, 4, pp. 50, 51.
WHY is the AMERICAN SENTINEL, and why are certain people in Congress and elsewhere, making so much ... in defense of the old ideals of American government? AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.1
For answer we quote from the language used by two leading journals of this city, in support of the policy of “expansion.” Let the readers note, and remember that this represents the general sentiment of the American press. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.2
The New York Sun says this:— AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.3
“The Declaration of Independence was made to ... a particular existing condition of things.... The proposition [that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed] was general, but the application was to a particular situation. Obviously Thomas Jefferson, the framer of the Declaration, did not intend to apply it to all people, for the social and political conditions would have made such an application absurd. The consent of the Indians as to their government had not been asked then, nor has it been asked at any time since then. The consent of the negro slaves was not asked. The consent of the people shut out from the franchise by a property qualification long existing subsequently was not asked. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.4
“The Declaration meant simply that the colonies had become tired of the British domination, deeming it oppressive, and intended to set up a government of their own by the right of revolution. They were not laying down a principle for anybody except themselves, and they had no conception of the ‘consent of the governed’ as it is proclaimed by Mr. Bryan and the generally hypocritical gang who are sympathizing with him in the hope of cheating us out of our rightful conquests.” AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.5
This is a flat assertion of class or race superiority between man and man in respect of their rights. Let this become established American doctrine, and “rights” will mean for Americans simply such privileges as one has the power to get and maintain. And with this the nation with one gigantic stride will go back to the institutions of despotism. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.6
The same day that the above was said by the Sun, the New York Journal said:— AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.7
“What our anti-expansionists mean when they speak of liberty is something quite different [from liberty under the American flag]. They mean power. They mean that unless the Filipinos have unchecked authority to run their government as they please, even if they run it to smash they are not free.” AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.8
Liberty without power! What kind of liberty is that? Who wants that kind of liberty? And is this the ideal of liberty which is to prevail in the United States? AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.9
The veriest despotism that ever was would have been willing to allow the people under it all the liberty that could be had apart from power. Let it retain the power, and the people might have what else they would. And when the struggle for liberty came, it was a struggle for the possession of power. Now did any people ever count themselves free, until they possessed the power to exercise that freedom according to their own ideas of liberty. AMS January 26, 1899, page 50.10
Power is the very essence of liberty. When God gives a man liberty he gives him power; the very essence of his liberty is in the fact that he is “endued with power from on high.” And people who have a form of godliness but “deny the power thereof,” are set forth in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:5) as having no real godliness at all. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.1
Liberty without power,—that is an ideal of liberty which will suit every despot well, not only in the islands of seas and for the Filipinos, but in the United States and for American citizens. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.2
Every free people possess the power to run their government “to smash;” they must possess it to run their government at all. The American people possess it; and the plain evidence that they do is visible in the fact that they are running it—or letting it be run—to smash with almost lightning speed. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.3
“Who Will Stand By the Declaration of Independence?” American Sentinel 14, 4, pp. 51-53.
THE Tribune of this city, January 9, sets forth the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, as follows:— AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.1
“It is a favorite notion now to quote the words, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,’ as if these embodied a law of application to all inhabitants alike. But of the men who signed the Declaration there were many who held slaves, and these slaves were governed without their consent.... It was never the intention to assert that the negroes or the savage race must give consent before just government should be established over them.... AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.2
“The Declaration of Independence was a formal notice that inhabitants of the colonies consented no longer to British rule. It declared their right to withdraw consent when government became subversive of their rights and openly appealed to the god of battles. The consent of the governed was then withdrawn in the colonies, and from that time it was held that Great Britain had no longer just right to govern here. That is precisely the meaning of the language.” AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.3
That identical argument, in substance and almost in words, was made just forty years ago. And it was as popular then as it is now. This argument was then sanctioned even by the great authority of the Supreme Court of the United States. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.4
Forty years ago also this argument was thoroughly answered. The answer was made by Abraham Lincoln, and is good for all time. It is well that the people can have Abraham Lincoln’s answer to these denials of the Declaration that are made to-day. Read Tribune for Douglas, and here is Abraham Lincoln’s answer to the Tribune’s argument:— AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.5
“I think the authors of that noble instrument [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all men; but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal with ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant to declare simply the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.6
“They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to; constantly labored for; and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated; and thereby constantly spreading the deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.7
“The assertion that ‘all men are created equal,’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, as thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to all those who, in after times, might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.8
“I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that ‘all men are created equal.’ AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.9
“Now let us hear Judge Douglas’s view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:— AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.10
“‘No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they do declared all men to have been created equal—that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain—that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country.’ AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.11
“My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it—see what a mere wreck—mangled ruin, it makes of our once glorious Declaration. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.12
“‘They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!’ Why, according to this, not only negroes, but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure; but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to plot along with the Judge’s inferior races. AMS January 26, 1899, page 51.13
“I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition! According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own in these United States. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.1
“I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely ‘was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.’ Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now—mere rubbish—old wadding left to rot on the battlefield after the victory is won. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.2
“I understand you are preparing to celebrate the ‘Fourth” to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas’s version. It will then run thus: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain.’ AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.3
“And now I appeal to all—to Democrats as well as others—are you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered away,—thus left no more at most than an interesting memorial of the dead past—thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it? AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.4
“These Fourth of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.5
“We are now a mighty nation; we are thirty, or about thirty [now (1899) about eighty] millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two [a hundred and twenty-three] years, and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men; we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other connected with this rise of prosperity. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.6
“We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in the process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we are from these meetings in better humor with ourselves; we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age and race and country in which we live, for these celebrations. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.7
“But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have—besides these men descended by blood from our ancestors—among us, perhaps half our people, who are not descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come form Europe,—German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian,—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are a part of us; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them and that they have the right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause]: and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty loving men together; that ill link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.] AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.8
“Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea ... that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England! According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government in a government of some other form? AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.9
“Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow,—What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for the enslaving of the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of Kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the judge is the same old serpent that says, You work, and I eat; you toil, and I will enjoy the fruit of it. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.10
“Turn it in whatever way you will, whether it comes from the mouth of a king as an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent; and I hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out! [Cries of ‘No, no.’] Let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then. AMS January 26, 1899, page 52.11
“It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us; and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this Government. We had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; but having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle, that is, the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as our standard. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.1
“My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord, ‘As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.’ The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Father in heaven; but he said, ‘As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.’ He set that up as a standard; and he who did most toward reaching that standard, attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature. Let us then turn this Government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.2
“I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858 [and 1899] shall be thus amended. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.3
“In his construction of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come among us since the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he tells it meant Europeans. I press him a little further, and ask him if it meant to include Russians in Asia; or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of our Declaration of Independence? ... Who shall say, I am the superior, and you are the inferior?” A. T. J. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.4
“The Great Advocate of ‘Expansion’” American Sentinel 14, 4, pp. 53, 54.
WHY is this Government in favor—as it undoubtedly is—of “expansion”? AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.1
What serious argument can be offered in its support? What argument is offered, beyond the “spread-eagle” one which boasts of the nation prowess and asserts the “rights of conquest”? AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.2
Every principle of justice and sound policy, on the other hand, is against it. It repudiates the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Its most ardent friends admit this by putting forth in its defense the amazing assertion that the Declaration of Independence does not assert the right of the government by the consent of the governed for all people, but only for a certain class of people—the class in power. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.3
As regards mere business policy, it is wholly uncalled for. There is no territory to be settled and added to the Union; the Philippines and Porto Rico are already settled, and the climate shuts out the white man from any permanent occupancy. Nor is there any advantage to be reaped in trade; the Philippines are thousands of miles nearer to British shores than they are to the United States. And if there were anything to be gained in trade, it could be gained as well without military conquest, as with it. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.4
Americans will bear all the expense of maintaining the government, and other countries will get all the trade. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.5
A large army of men from American homes will need to be stationed in the Philippines to preserve order and hold the islands against other powers—and to sicken and die under the unhealthy climate; and a large navy will also be required for their defense; besides which, an immense sum will need to be expended in the erection of fortifications. And the money to meet the expense of all this must come out of American pockets. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.6
How then can it be, in the face of all this, that this Government can for a moment seriously think of taking and holding the Philippines? AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.7
Let us seek for light on the point by asking who they are that favor the annexation policy. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.8
Are they those who have the interests of republican government at heart? AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.9
Aside from the class whose judgment is dazzled by the new vision of world-wide empire, there are some who favor the policy as a means of associating America with Great Britain in military enterprise in eastern Asia. This, as Lord Salisbury remarked, would conduce materially to the advantage of Great Britain, but not to the maintenance of peace. The alliance would be one of great cost for America. To the profit of England. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.10
But there is another power in this country in favor of American expansion, and which is working for that policy most diligently—Rome! AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.11
First, last, and always since the Philippines, Cuba, and Porto Rico were wrested from the control of “most Catholic Spain,” the papacy has been in favor of American expansion over all this territory. And in the person of Archbishop Ireland, the papacy has had opportunity to work in very close touch with the Administration. AMS January 26, 1899, page 53.12
Archbishop Ireland, Martinelli, the papal ablegate, teacher in the Catholic University at Washington, and influential members of the church, in touch with senators and representatives, are all ardent advocates of the scheme, even to the extent of working openly for the annexation of Cuba, in the face of the express promise of the Government made before all the world, to secure Cuban independence. And Cardinal Gibbons has moved to Washington for the winter, that he may the better employ all his resources in bending the Administration to this policy. AMS January 26, 1899, page 54.1
And why does Rome want annexation of this territory to the United States? Oh, she has great interests in these islands, in the shape of property taken from the natives and rightful owners by every species of robbery practiced under Spanish dominion; and she wants all this property secured to her under the new order of things. A very substantial reason in her view for favoring “expansion,” truly! AMS January 26, 1899, page 54.2
Rome has robbed the people, and by this and other acts of oppression has aroused their enmity and even their hatred. In the Philippines, especially, the religious orders are held in the deepest detestation. Aguinaldo, it is reported, has released all the Spanish prisoners held there, except the friars. If the government of the islands is left to the people that inhabit them, Rome will be obliged to surrender the enormous holdings of land and other property made over to her under Spanish Authority, and which rightfully belong to the people. And she wants the American Government to interpose its power and authority to prevent it. AMS January 26, 1899, page 54.3
Rome knows that this expansion scheme is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution, to every principle of free government, and to everything that the nation has done in behalf of downtrodden races. She knows there is no advantage in it for the American people, but only great expense and unending trouble. She knows, in short, that it is a ruinous policy for this country. Yet she asks the nation to adopt this suicidal course, in order to uphold for her, her most unjust claims in the islands lost by Spain! AMS January 26, 1899, page 54.4
This is Rome; and this is the scheme she is working to-day against the United States. AMS January 26, 1899, page 54.5
“Back Page” American Sentinel 14, 4, p. 64.
THE plea that a people cannot govern themselves is the tyrant’s justification of his usurpation of power. Christianity affirms the right and the duty of every man to govern himself; and to say that a people cannot govern themselves is therefore to deny the truth of Christianity. A people who have had little contact with civilization may not be able to govern themselves in the complex fashion of “highly civilized” nations, but their government will be no less self-government because it must needs be simple. Very much that pertains to “advanced” civilization might be dispensed with vastly to the profit of the losers. Even the beasts and birds of the forest have the capacity to govern themselves according to their natures, and are a good deal happier and better of in doing so than when under the control of man. AMS January 26, 1899, page 64.1
SCARCELY a day passes without the announcement of the consolidation of business enterprises in a certain line of industry, into a “trust;” the object in every case being, of course, to control the output of the goods, and through that to dictate the price to the people. All restrict the sphere of individual enterprise, and by this interfere with individual independence. All are essentially bad; but the worst one of all is the religious trust, which aims to freeze out and stamp out by legislation every religion except its own. AMS January 26, 1899, page 64.2
WE have failed as a nation to live up to the high ideal of government set forth in the Declaration of Independence, as shown by various practices, institutions, laws, and court decisions contrary to this ideal, which mark the nation’s history from 1776 to 1899. Therefore let us throw that ideal aside altogether and set up a different one with which these failings can be harmonized(!) This is the sum and substance of one of the main argumnents put forth in favor of imperialism. AMS January 26, 1899, page 64.3