首页>要闻>天下           天下         

      

厦门韩式隆鼻百度大夫

2019年11月14日 03:55:07 | 作者:天涯养生 | 来源:新华社
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTON -H1N1 NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSERose Garden2:13 P.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I say a few words about the meeting we just had I'd like to mention some good news that came out today about our economy. For the first time in 18 months, our manufacturing sector has expanded, and the statistics used to measure manufacturing output is the highest it's been in over two years.This means greater production of transportation equipment like cars, and electronic equipment like computers and appliances, and it means these companies are starting to invest more and produce more, and it is a sign that we're on the path to economic recovery.There's no doubt that we have a long way to go, and I and the other members of this administration will not let up until those Americans who are looking for jobs can find them. But this is another important sign that we're heading in the right direction, and that the steps we've taken to bring our economy back from the brink are working.Now, we just had a good meeting about our ongoing efforts to prepare this country for the H1N1 flu virus this fall. And I want to thank John Brennan, our CDC Director Tom Frieden, and Secretaries Sebelius, Napolitano, Duncan, and Locke, for all the good work that they've been doing to get us y today.As I said when we saw the first cases of this virus back in the spring, I don't want anybody to be alarmed, but I do want everybody to be prepared. We know that we usually get a second, larger wave of these flu viruses in the fall, and so response plans have been put in place across all levels of government. Our plans and decisions are based on the best scientific information available, and as the situation changes, we will continue to update the public.We're also making steady progress on developing a safe and effective H1N1 flu vaccine, and we expect a flu shot program will begin soon. This program will be completely voluntary, but it will be strongly recommended.For all that we do in the federal government, however, every American has a role to play in responding to this virus. We need state and local governments on the front lines to make antiviral medications and vaccines available, and be y to take whatever steps are necessary to support the health care system. We need hospitals and health care providers to continue preparing for an increased patient load, and to take steps to protect health care workers. We need families and businesses to ensure that they have plans in place if a family member, a child, or a co-worker contracts the flu and needs to stay home.And most importantly we need everyone to get informed about individual risk factors, and we need everyone to take the common-sense steps that we know can make a difference. Stay home if you're sick. Wash your hands frequently. Cover your sneezes with your sleeve, not your hands. And take all the necessary precautions to stay healthy. I know it sounds simple, but it's important and it works.Finally, for people who want to learn more about this virus, please go to www.flu.gov, or talk to your doctor.I want to commend every member of our team. I think we've done an extraordinary job in preparing for this flu outbreak. We anticipate that there will be some issues coming up over the next several months. The way it's moving is still somewhat unpredictable, but what I'm absolutely confident about is that our team that's assembled here has done an extraordinary job in preparing for whatever may happen.So we appreciate all of you for being here, and I want to publicly again thank you for all your extraordinarily hard work. All right.END 2:18 P.M. EDT09/83239TED于1984年由理查德·温曼和哈里·马克思共同创办,从1990年开始每年在美国加州的蒙特利举办一次,而如今,在世界的其他城市也会每半年举办一次。  它邀请世界上的思想领袖与实干家来分享他们最热衷从事的事业。“TED”由“科技”、“”以及“设计”三个英文单词首字母组成,这三个广泛的领域共同塑造着我们的未来。事实上,这场盛会涉及的领域还在不断扩展,展现着涉及几乎各个领域的各种见解。参加者们称它为 “超级大脑SPA”和“四日游未来”。  大会观众往往是企业的CEO、科学家、创造者、慈善家等等,他们几乎和演讲嘉宾一样优秀。比尔·克林顿、比尔·盖茨、维基百科创始人吉米·威尔斯、DNA结构的发现者詹姆斯·华森、google创办人、英国动物学家珍妮·古道尔、美国建筑大师弗兰克·盖里、歌手保罗·西蒙、维珍品牌创始人理查德·布兰森爵士、国际设计大师菲利普·斯达克以及U2乐队主唱Bono都曾经担任过演讲嘉宾。  大凡有机会来到TED大会现场作演讲的均有非同寻常的经历,他们要么是某一领域的佼佼者,要么是某一新兴领域的开创人,要么是做出了某些足以给社会带来改观的创举。比如人类基因组研究领域的领军人物Craig Venter,“给每位孩子一百美元笔记本电脑”项目的创建人 Nicholas Negroponte,只身滑到北极的第一人 Ben Saunders,当代杰出的语言学家 Steven Pinker……至于像 Al Gore 那样的明星就更是TED大会之常客了。  每一个TED 演讲的时间通常都是18分钟以内,但是,由于演讲者对于自己所从事的事业有一种深深的热爱,他们的演讲也往往最能打动听者的心,并引起人们的思考与进一步探索。201109/155483Yesterday, President Obama traveled to Parkville Middle School and Center for Technology to unveil his budget proposal for 2012 and explain some of the tough choices we have to make so we can afford to invest in our future. During a news conference today, the President spoke about how the federal government, like American families, must consider all areas of the budget in order to live within its means while still investing in the future:Download Video: mp4 (581MB) | mp3 (56MB) 201102/126168

President's Radio AddressTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Our Nation is dealing with a serious financial crisis. Over the past month, Americans have witnessed fast-moving events involving complicated financial issues. I know many of you are concerned about your finances. So this morning, I want to tell you how we're addressing the uncertainty in our economy.The federal government has responded to this crisis with systematic and aggressive measures to protect the financial security of the American people. These actions will take more time to have their full impact. But they are big enough and bold enough to work.The primary focus of our efforts is addressing the underlying problem behind the freeze in our credit markets. Earlier this month, Congress passed bipartisan legislation authorizing the Treasury Department to use up to 0 billion to help banks rebuild capital. This week, I announced that the Treasury will use a portion of that money to inject capital directly into banks by purchasing equity shares. This new capital will help banks continue making loans to businesses and consumers. In addition, the Treasury will use part of the 0 billion to purchase some of the troubled assets that are weighing down banks' balance sheets and clogging the financial system. This extraordinary effort is designed with one overriding purpose: to help banks get loans flowing to American consumers and businesses, so they can create jobs and grow our economy. I know many Americans have reservations about the government's approach, especially about allowing the government to hold shares in private banks. As a strong believer in free markets, I would oppose such measures under ordinary circumstances. But these are no ordinary circumstances. Had the government not acted, the hole in our financial system would have grown larger, families and businesses would have had an even tougher time getting loans, and ultimately the government would have been forced to respond with even more drastic and costly measures later on. So I decided that government had to move, but that government's involvement in individual banks had to have prudent limits.The government's involvement is limited in size. The government will only buy a small percentage of shares in banks that choose to participate, so that private investors retain majority ownership.The government's involvement is limited in scope. The government will not exercise control over any private firm, and federal officials will not have a seat around your local bank's boardroom table. The shares owned by the government will have voting rights that can be used only to protect the taxpayer's investment -- not to direct the firm's operations.The government's involvement is limited in duration. It includes provisions to encourage banks to buy their shares back from the government when the markets stabilize and they can raise money from private investors. This will ensure that banks have an incentive to find private capital to replace the taxpayer's investment -- and to do so quickly.I know many of you are also concerned about the price tag of this rescue package. Ultimately, we believe the final cost will be significantly less than the initial investment. Many of the troubled assets that the government buys will increase in value as the market recovers. That means the government eventually will be able to resell them for a higher price. In addition, the government will receive quarterly dividends from the equity shares it purchases in financial institutions. If banks do not repurchase these shares within five years, the dividends they owe the government will increase substantially. This provides a clear incentive for banks to buy back their shares, thus returning the money to taxpayers, as soon as possible.In the long run, the American people can have confidence that our economy will bounce back. America is the best place in the world to start and run a business, the most attractive destination for investors around the globe, and home to the most talented, enterprising, and creative workers in the world. We're a country where all people have the freedom to realize their potential and chase their dreams. This promise has defined our Nation since its founding, this promise will guide us through the challenges we face today, and this promise will continue to define our Nation for generations to come.Thank you for listening.200810/53311

TED于1984年由理查德·温曼和哈里·马克思共同创办,从1990年开始每年在美国加州的蒙特利举办一次,而如今,在世界的其他城市也会每半年举办一次。  它邀请世界上的思想领袖与实干家来分享他们最热衷从事的事业。“TED”由“科技”、“”以及“设计”三个英文单词首字母组成,这三个广泛的领域共同塑造着我们的未来。事实上,这场盛会涉及的领域还在不断扩展,展现着涉及几乎各个领域的各种见解。参加者们称它为 “超级大脑SPA”和“四日游未来”。  大会观众往往是企业的CEO、科学家、创造者、慈善家等等,他们几乎和演讲嘉宾一样优秀。比尔·克林顿、比尔·盖茨、维基百科创始人吉米·威尔斯、DNA结构的发现者詹姆斯·华森、google创办人、英国动物学家珍妮·古道尔、美国建筑大师弗兰克·盖里、歌手保罗·西蒙、维珍品牌创始人理查德·布兰森爵士、国际设计大师菲利普·斯达克以及U2乐队主唱Bono都曾经担任过演讲嘉宾。  大凡有机会来到TED大会现场作演讲的均有非同寻常的经历,他们要么是某一领域的佼佼者,要么是某一新兴领域的开创人,要么是做出了某些足以给社会带来改观的创举。比如人类基因组研究领域的领军人物Craig Venter,“给每位孩子一百美元笔记本电脑”项目的创建人 Nicholas Negroponte,只身滑到北极的第一人 Ben Saunders,当代杰出的语言学家 Steven Pinker……至于像 Al Gore 那样的明星就更是TED大会之常客了。  每一个TED 演讲的时间通常都是18分钟以内,但是,由于演讲者对于自己所从事的事业有一种深深的热爱,他们的演讲也往往最能打动听者的心,并引起人们的思考与进一步探索。201109/155483

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

In our whole system,national and State,在我们的整个体系中,无论是国家的还是州立的,we have shunned all the defects which unceasingly preyed on the vitals and destroyed the ancient Republics.我们已避免了所有那些不停地危及利害,颠覆古代共和国的缺陷。In them there were distinct orders,a nobility and a people,它们中有明显的不同制度:或是一个贵族和一个民众,or the people governed in one assembly.或是由一个议会来管理民众。Thus,in the one instance there was a perpetual conflict between the orders in society for the ascendency,这样,在一个情况下社会的各阶级之间存在着无休止的冲突,in which the victory of either terminated in the overthrow of the government and the ruin of the state;其中任何一方的胜利都会造成推翻政府和国家覆亡;in the other,in which the people governed in a body,而在另一个情况下,人民由一个政体来统治,and whose dominions seldom exceeded the dimensions of a county in one of our States,而且其领土极少超过我们某个州的一个县的大小,a tumultuous and disorderly movement permitted only a transitory existence.喧闹而混乱的运动只允许一个短暂的生存。In this great nation there is but one order,that of the people,whose power,在我们这一伟大的国家只有一个制度,人民的制度;by a peculiarly happy improvement of the representative principle,is transferred from them,通过一个对代表制度非常完善的改进,按自由,开明,高效的政府的需要。without impairing in the slightest degree their sovereignty,to bodies of their own creation,他们的权利完全地被转移到他们自己所创立的多个政体,and to persons elected by themselves,in the full extent necessary for all the purposes of free,enlightened and efficient government.和他们选出的人员中,而没有丝毫损害他们的主权。The whole system is elective,the complete sovereignty being in the people,整个体制以选举为基础,主权彻底属于人民,and every officer in every department deriving his authority from and being responsible to them for his conduct.而且每个部门的每个官员的权力都来自于他们,并要对他们负责其行为举止。Our career has correspond with this great outline.我们的事业和这一宏伟的大纲相一致。Perfection in our organization could not have been expected in the outset either in the National or State Governments or in tracing the line between their respective powers.不能期望一开始在国家或州立的政府中,或是在它们各自权力之间的界线追溯中就完善我们的组织。But no serious conflict has arisen,nor any contest but such as are managed by argument and by a fair appeal to the good sense of the people,但是,我们没有严重的冲突,也没有任何纷争;而且这些可通过辨论处理,也通过公正地求助于民众的理智来解决。and many of the defects which experience had clearly demonstrated in both Governments have been remedied,并且我们也医治了许多以往经历中以上两种政府所显示出的缺点。By steadily pursuing this course in this spirit there is every reason to believe that our system will soon attain the highest degree of perfection of which human institutions are capable,通过坚定地以此精神实行此路线,我们完全有理由相信,我们的体制将很快达到人类机构所可能达到的最高程度的完善,and that the movement in all its branches will exhibit such a degree of order and harmony as to command the admiration and respect of the civilized world.并且,其所有分部的发展将展示一定程度的条理和谐调,以致引来文明世界的羡慕和尊敬。Entering with these views the office which I have just solemnly sworn to execute with fidelity and to the utmost of my ability,带着这些想法,即将进入我刚庄严宣誓要以忠心并尽我所能来履行的职责,I derive great satisfaction from a knowledge that I shall be assisted in the several Departments by the very enlightened and upright citizens from whom I have received so much aid in the preceding term.我因确信我将在多个部门中得到一组非常开明和正直的公民的辅助而感到非常满意。我的前任已给了我很多帮助。With full confidence in the continuance of that candor and generous indulgence from my fellow citizens at large which I have heretofore experienced,完全相信我至今为止所受到的同胞们普遍的坦诚和慷慨宽容会延续下去,and with a firm reliance on the protection of Almighty God.并坚定地依靠全能上帝的保护,I shall forthwith commence the duties of the high trust to which you have called me.现在我就将开始你们召唤我上任的被赋予如此高度信任的职务。01/436176

President Bush Meets with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, welcome back. You and I have met a lot since I have been the President and you have been the President. And I appreciate your determination and your desire to have a Palestinian state, and I share that desire with you.It's not easy -- no doubt it must be frustrating at times for you, because it's hard work to get a state after all these years. But nevertheless, there is a firm determination on your part and on my part to give the Palestinians a place where there can be dignity and hope.We are working hard with you on security matters. We're working hard with you on helping the international community help you get the economy going in the West Bank. And I welcome you back.As you know, I've got four more months left in office and I'm hopeful that the vision that you and I have worked on can come to pass. And my only pledge to you is that I'll continue to work hard to see that it can come to pass. And so I welcome you back -- and I think it's safe for me to say I welcome you back, my friend.PRESIDENT ABBAS: Thank you. (As translated.) Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am delighted, as well as the members of my delegation, to come here again to Washington and meet with you. We've met together for numerous times. Mr. President, we know very well how important this issue is for you and we will continue to work very hard together in order to realize your vision of two states living side by side.There is no doubt that you have done a great deal, Mr. President, and you have exerted a great deal of efforts aiming at achieving that vision that we will work together to achieve. Your efforts, Mr. President, as well as your vision, both help us and the Israelis to work very hard during the last year and since the convening of the Annapolis Conference. Hope will remain, Mr. President. We cannot live without hope. We will continue to work to achieve and realize that hope.And Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you and thank the ed States for the help and the support and the aid that you have given us, and as well as the efforts that you led to mobilize the world to help the Palestinian Authority on the economic front as well as on the security front.Mr. President, we will continue to work with you and we will continue to keep the hope alive in order to reach a political solution for our issue and for the Middle East.PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.200809/50525

  • 京东新闻福建厦门市中医院专家预约
  • 集美区妇幼保健医院做丰胸手术多少钱
  • 厦门假体丰胸全套
  • 好医爱问漳州用激光点痣会留疤吗
  • 好养生福建妇幼保健医院韩式三点双眼皮多少钱
  • 厦门怎么祛斑最有效
  • 康乐园南平市去除眉间纹手术多少钱
  • 漳州市中医医院门诊部营业时间
  • 厦门在那家整形医院好
  • 久久养生厦门怎么样才能让皮肤变白
  • 厦门割双眼皮哪家最好问医解答
  • 海沧区妇幼保健医院激光去黄褐斑多少钱
  • 在厦门手术去除皱纹QQ养生厦门祛斑美容
  • 厦大中山医院是正规的
  • 厦门地区市三医院激光去痘多少钱康报厦门双眼皮多少钱
  • 厦门欧菲医院祛眼袋多少钱大河优惠
  • 医护分享厦门鹰钩鼻整形价格
  • 厦门哪个整容医院磨颧骨好
  • 厦门去眼袋手术
  • 厦门哪家激光脱毛比较好
  • 厦门市口腔医院官网专家在线咨询中国卫生厦门第一医院电话多少
  • 厦门割双眼皮推荐医院华生活
  • 厦门双眼皮修复医院哪家好
  • 快乐乐园在厦门地区纹眉医院
  • 厦门翔安区牙科医院
  • 在厦门丰苹果肌平安门户
  • 39频道厦门第六代水动力吸脂
  • 厦门埋双眼皮哪家好
  • 厦门第一人民医院激光去烫伤的疤多少钱
  • 厦门激光脱毛费用
  • 相关阅读
  • 明天开始一年内赚的盆满钵满穷的只剩钱的生肖
  • 百倍的热情千遍的呵护万分的用心品鉴华菱星马运煤专线上
  • 洛阳城市建设勘察设计院有限公司招聘信息
  • 阿梅你真的学了中医比较擅长是哪一方面的?你是在乡下学的吗
  • 深圳互金协会发布通知严禁成员单位开展首付贷等违规业务
  • 乌兰察布市召开十三五人才发展规划座谈会
  • 《梦想的声音》本周逆势上扬田馥甄浓妆惊艳颠覆
  • 特朗普要废了耶伦?华尔街的小心脏都要跳出来了!
  • 车市之星专访上海锦俊总经理尤悦梅
  • 地铁时代常青城暂无房源可售(图)
  • 编辑:网上健康

    关键词:厦门韩式隆鼻

    更多

    更多