Henry Cabot Lodge.

Address by Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge .. online

. (page 1 of 2)
Online LibraryHenry Cabot LodgeAddress by Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge .. → online text (page 1 of 2)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook








The Academy of Music, Philadelphia,

OCTOBER I, 1900.







• ■■•••



The Academy of Music, Philadelphia,

OCTOBER I, 1900.




President Darlington:

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the most encouraging signs of
the times is the deeper interest which the women of our land
are taking in public and national affairs. (Applause.) I cannot
confess to be a very ardent admirer of that new type of woman-
hood styled " the modern woman," but I am a very enthusiastic
admirer of the woman who makes herself familiar with affairs
which affect the welfare, the prosperity and the honor of her
country. (Applause.) Possessed of an inherent power which
she scarcely realizes, and which we fail to fully appreciate, if she
will make herself familiar with public and national affairs, so
that she can converse on them intelligently and with understand-
ing, she wields a power and an influence which creates public
thought and indirectly suggests wise legislation. Her presence
at a meeting of this character is elevating, inspiring and in every
way to be desired. In the name of The Union League of Phil-
adelphia, I most heartily welcome the women who honor us by
their presence this evening. (Applause.)

In pursuance of a duty and an obligation, not only to the peo-
ple of Philadelphia, but to the great ReiJublican party, with



which we are associated, this meeting has been called for the
purpose of presenting for your consideration matters of national
importance, regarding which there is much ignorance, much
misunderstanding, but withal a very earnest desire for infor-
mation. Among all the brilliant and gifted men who to-day
are recognized as statesmen of the highest order, I know of no
man more familiar with every event of recent occurrence, and
in every way qualified to speak to us, than is the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts. (Cheers.) Personally familiar
with every event of our national history in recent years, a gen-
tleman of profound learning, a man of careful and close observa-
tion, an intelligent, wise and patriotic statesman, whose voice is
always heard in the highest legislative hall of the land in ad-
vocacy of every measure which tends to maintain the national
honor and secure the prosperity of every section of our country,
and possessing the power and ability to impart intelligently and
clearly the knowledge which he possesses, it is with very great
pleasure that I present to you the Honorable Henry Cabot

Senator Lodge :

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the cor-
dial reception which you have been kind enough to accord me
that there are more Republicans in this good old city than in one
which I recently visited, and where I did not have the privilege
of speaking. (Laughter.) There do not seem to be as many
persons in this audience interested in "16 to 1 " as in some
audiences I have seen.

There is one difficulty that I have found in this campaign,
and that is to exactly define our opponents. It is customary to

refer to them as Democrats. I think this is very unfair to the
Democratic party. (Laughter.) The Democratic party has had
a long history, and has been a great party. I have differed, I
think, historically and practically, with almost all its beliefs and
policies, but nevertheless it has had a great past and a great his-
tory. Among other things, it has been in the past the party of
expansion, and the addition which it has made to our national
territory is the greatest monument which it has raised. (Ap-
plause.) It was also, many years ago, the party of hard money,
" the money of the Constitution." It has slipped away from
that a good deal. (Laughter.)

Ever since the war the Democratic party has fallen into the
unfortunate habit of bidding for the support of any detachment
of Republicans who were dissatisfied, or any third party who
happened to be around — with one exception. I do not think they
ever appealed to the Prohibition party. (Laughter.)

You will remember that, after the war, they went in for pay-
ing bonds in paper. Then they went after the Greenback party,
and for a time they were all Greenbackers. One of them still
survives in the person of their present candidate for Vice-Presi-
dent. (Laughter.) Then they went after the Silver party.
That was their most unfortunate expedition, for the Silver party
swallowed them, and now they are running after the Anti-Im-
perialists, the smallest party they have ever hunted, I think.

Therefore I think it is only fair to the party that has been
(and I say it with all seriousness) a great party, with a past of
great traditions — I think it is only fair not to use their name in
describing the present aggregation. I prefer to refer to Mr.
Bryan as the candidate of the mixed tickets. You will remem-

ber that Mr. Bryan, in his anxiety about one man power, and
the coming of imperialism in the United States, after he had re-
luctantly caused himself to be nominated at Kansas City, pro-
ceeded further in his great care to prepare a platform for them ;
and he not only did that, but he selected the issue which the
American people were to discuss, and he called it paramount.
It was said at the time that it was received with wild cheering
by the Convention. I dare say a good many of them felt like
the old lady who liked to hear the word " Mesopotamia " men-
tioned. She did not know where it was or what it was, but she
liked the sound of the word ; but I think, with a good many
among the more intelligent of the thinkers who constituted that
gathering, that the word awakened a great many tender recollec-
tions. Let me explain what I mean. Some years ago Presi-
dent Harrison sent into the Senate a treaty annexing the Ha-
waiian Islands to the United States. Then he went out of power,
and his successor, Mr. Cleveland, withdrew the treaty. He
wasn't satisfied with that. He sent out a commissioner to Hawaii
to take down the flag, which somebody had incautiously raised
there, and he called the commissioner " Paramount. " Well, the
commissioner went out, and he took down the flag, and he came
back, and he went into retirement, and he is still there — " the
world forgetting, by the world forgot" — and by the time we have
come to the end of this campaign, we will relegate the " para-
mount issue " to the same obscurity as that now enjoyed by the
" Paramount Commissioner."

But, as Mr. Bryan says this is the paramount issue, I am only
too delighted to discuss it. I wish there was no other issue,
at least in the West. If there was no other issue in the
West, we should sweep every State high and dry; but out

there some of them seem to think that the paramount issue
is 16 to 1.

Let us discuss it, however, as Mr. Bryan puts it forward. He
broke his silence again yesterday and talked about it, and it is
worth while to consider what he says. By imperialism, as I un-
derstand it, he means the conversion of the United States into
an empire, through the medium of the Philippine Islands.
(Laughter.) We are not going to be converted into an empire
by Puerto Rico, which we took in exactly the same way, but by
the Philippines.

Now, how did we come by the Philippine Islands ? We got
into a war with Spain. If I remember rightly, all the Demo-
crats in Congress voted for that war, and were at some pains to
try to find fault with the President for what they considered
his needless delay. We entered on the war with Spain, and the
President, as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, was
charged with the duty of conducting that war. It was of course
the obvious military measure to attack the Spaniards wherever
we could, and we did so in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philip-

They had a fleet in the Philippines. We had one at Hong
Kong, and the President sent word to Admiral Dewey to find
out the Spanish fleet and fight it. That was a good military
measure. Nobody found fault with it then. All these wise
criticisms we have heard since were not heard then. So Dewey
went to Manila ; he found the Spanish fleet and he destroyed it,
and he took possession of Manila. A good many people have
since said that they wished he had sailed away then. Well,
there were two objections to that. In the first place, he had no-
where to go. He was seven thousand miles from home, and all


the other places were shut up. He had no harbor, no coal pile,
no anchorage, except that which he had thoughtfully provided
for himself in Manila.

The other objection was that nobody at that time— none of
these wise men— suggested for a moment that he should go
away. On the contrary, I remember very well in the Senate
that when I suggested, as I did on the floor, that the delay made
by the Democratic party in annexing Hawaii tended to hinder
sending relief to Dewey, they resented it, and they went further.
They criticised the Administration for delays in sendmg troops.
We sent the troops, and Manila fell before the signing of the
protocol was known in the East.

Then came the negotiations in Paris. What should be done
with the Philippines? Spanish sovereignty was gone. Ours
was the only sovereignty that existed in those islands. We
were the only barrier between those islands and absolute
anarchy. Our troops were all that stood between that great city
and the horde of insurrectionists outside the wall. What, under
those circumstances, should we do ?

Should we give them back to Spain? Nobody suggested
that. Aguinaldo, Agoncillo, and the rest of them were begging
that we should not hand them back to Spain. There was no
man, no American, who suggested that we should turn these
people over to a tyranny from which we had just rescued them.
That door was closed.

Should we hand them over to some other power, and say,
" We have got this on our hands. It is too big a job for us.
Won't you kindly undertake it?" Well, there seemed to be too
much self-respect m the American people for that. Nobody
sucrsested it, at all events.

The other alternative was to hand it all over to Aguinaldo —
Aguinaldo, the Chinese half-breed, at the head of a motley force
of some ten thousand men, gathered entirely from other Chinese
half-breeds, and from the Tagal tribe. He did not represent a
nation. He represented nobody but himself. There was no
Filipino nation, and there never has been. Those islands stretch
over the ocean for a thousand miles. They are utterly separated
geographically. There are eighty-three diiferent tribes in the
islands. They speak over fifty diiferent languages. There are
three entirely different race stocks there. The inhabitants of the
southern islands are Mohammedans, and are at perpetual war
with the inhabitants of the principal islands of the north, who
are Christians. Then there is a vast body of tribes, principally
wild tribes, who are in a state of low barbarism, without any re-
lio-ion. No one then thought it conceivable that we should hand
over to a fraction of one tribe, led by a half-breed adventurer,
who had raised his own standard, these eight or ten million

Nothing remained except to take the islands ourselves, and
solve the great problem they presented as best we could. We
took the islands. Among the Commissioners who signed that
treaty was Senator Gray of Delaware, a most distinguished
member of the Democratic party, a man identified with the
Cleveland administration, a learned lawyer, a gentleman of the
highest integrity, and he went to Paris utterly opposed to taking
the Philippine Islands ; but you may read his name at the bottom
of the treaty, and the reason he put it there, as he afterwards
told the Senate, was that there was nothing else he could do. It
was the only thing that could be done.

The President made the treaty, but that did not make it


law. To make it law, it had to be ratified by the Senate of the
United States. It takes two thirds to ratify a treaty. The Ee-
publicans did not have even a majority in the Senate. We had
forty-three members, and two of them voted against the treaty.
We had forty-one Kepublican votes for the treaty. There were
sixty votes for the treaty in all. Where did the other nmeteen
come from ? They came out of the Democratic-Populist party,
out of the supporters of Mr. Bryan, and they came there be-
cause he came to Washington, and urged that they should ratify
that treaty. (Applause.)

Now, I am not saying any part of this to avoid responsibility.
I am only too glad to take the whole responsibility for the Re-
publican party, for I think it was a great deed, but I want to
trace out th«iliistory of this event, and show who was concerned
in it. ITow, one of two things: when Mr. Bryan urged his fol-
lowers to support the treaty, he either acted like a broad-minded
patriot in taking the Philippines, or he did it for political ends.
Either he did it because he thought it was right, or he did it be-
cause he thought it was wrong. There is no escape from that.
What does he say himself? He says, "We had to ratify a
treaty of peace." Very true ; we did have to ratify a treaty of
peace ; nobody wanted to keep the war open. But a treaty of
peace can be amended just as well as any other treaty. He has
shifted his ground to-day. He says he wanted the treaty rati-
fied so that we could give the Filipinos independence. Worse
and worse. He has forgotten that a treaty can be amended.
He has forgotten the amendment offered by Senator Vest, which
provided that the Philippine clause should be so modified as to
put the Philippine Islands on precisely the same basis as Cuba,
which is what they say now they want to have done. That


amendment provided that Spain should simply relinquish
sovereignty, and that the islands should pass to us in trust, as
Cuba passed to us in trust, to be handed back to the people.
That amendment was offered. Spain would have accepted it.
Spain would have accepted, I think, almost anything just then ;
but it certainly would have accepted that. What became of
Vest's amendment? It was beaten. Beaten by Republican
votes ? Yes, wisely beaten, I think ; but Republicans were not
the only ones that voted against the Vest amendment. I find
on the list the following names : Allen of Nebraska voted
against it — the next friend of the candidate; Butler of North
Carolina voted against the Vest amendment. He is chairman
of the National Committee of the Populists. Harris, also a
Populist, and a supporter of the mixed ticket; Kyle, also a
Populist then, now returned to the fold.

Democrats, Faulkner, Gray, Lindsay of Kentucky, McHenry
of Louisiana, Morgan of Alabama, Pettus of Alabama, Sullivan
of Mississippi, and the following Silver Republicans, Mantle of
Montana (he has come back), Stewart of Nevada (he has come
back), and Teller, who has not come back. (Laughter.) The
Republicans did not have a majority in the Senate, and it only
requires a majority to carry an amendment. It does not require
a two thirds vote, as in the case of the ratification of a treaty.
It requires only a majority, and there were several Republicans
who voted for the Vest amendment. It was defeated by the aid
of those gentlemen whose names I have read. Therefore, when
they had their opportunity to amend the treaty, and give inde-
pendence to the Filipinos by the terms of the treaty, they failed
to do it.

No ; the thing was intended to make a political issue, and as


such we are perfectly ready to meet it, for we did not vote to
ratify that treaty because we wanted to make or unmake politi-
cal issues, but because, in the judgment of the Republican party,
and the Republican President, it was the wise and the right
thing to do. (Applause.)

But these islands are going to convert us into an empire ; we
are going to have an emperor, because we have got the Philip-
pine Islands. Well, now, emperors do not make themselves;
they have to have somebody to help them. They cannot do it
alone. Even a political local emperor like Croker cannot do it
all alone ; he has to have a pretty stout body of men with him
in order to do it. A man cannot make himself emperor, or
Cfesar, or whatever you choose to call it, unless he has an in-
strument to do it with, and they find that instrument in the
army of the United States, the regular army of the United
States, sixty-five thousand men, eighty-four one hundredths of a
man, and eighty-four one hundredths of a gun to every thousand
of the American population. If that fraction — eighty-four one
hundredths — of a soldier is to be the instrument of tyranny, and
the little Republic of Switzerland has forty-seven soldiers to the
thousand of her population, and yet is not afraid, I think we
can say to our Democratic and Populist brothers that, if they are
really afraid, the Republican party is strong enough to protect
them from any such tyranny. (Laughter.) We will not allow
our liberties to be threatened by sixty-five thousand men in the

But there is something very much more serious to that mili-
tary proposition than that charge, which is ridiculous on its face,
and that is the implication against the soldiers of the United
States. What is there in all our history to justify such an attack


as this upon the men who wear the uniform of the United
States ? Have they ever shown themselves less devoted to the
freedom of the country and the greatness of the Republic than
their brethren at home ? After the Civil War there were a mil-
lion men in arms in this country on the Northern side, veterans
tried on a hundred fields, the finest army then in the world.
(Applause.) There was an instrument of tyranny, if you will,
and there were Democrats in the land where the Knights of the
Golden Circle flourished who said that Abraham Lincoln
(applause) meant to make himself a C?esar, and that was the
reason the country ought to vote against him in 1864. But the
country did not believe them then, and won't believe them now ;
and if any man had proposed to those million men in arms that
they should make an attack on the institutions of the Republic,
he would have suffered at their hands first of all. That great
army disappeared silently in the great body of the people and
became the first citizens and most devoted and loyal sons the
country has. Is there any reason to suppose that the sons of
those men, the generation of to-day, are any less devoted than
their fathers ? I, for one, will not believe it.

" It is a bad thing," says Mr. Bryan, " to have these soldiers
idling about." Capron was killed in Cuba " idling about ; "
Lawton was killed in the Philippines "idling about." They have
all been " idling ahout " under those tropic skies, defending our
flag and our honor. " Idling about ! " Was there ever such an
insult to the uniform of the United States ? Is there any man
who does not know that those men, Avho risked so much and
faced so much, are just as devoted and just as loyal to the flag
which they follow as anybody in the whole country ? We are
proud of our soldiers who have never failed us. The Republican


party does not fear them. It has put at the head of its ticket a
man who earned his straps at Antietam, and they have associated
with him a man who won his promotion on another hard-fought
field. We are not afraid of the volunteer soldiers of the Re-
public, and you and I and all of us would just as lief trust our
lives to men like Lawton and Capron, and the rest of them, who
have been standing up for the flag, as we would to some of these
glib gentlemen who are standing up for office.

You may think that these are new, these predictions about the
evils which will flow from expansion. I have here a remon-
strance which was passed in 1813 by the Legislature of Massa-
chusetts. There are not so many of these Cassandras in exist-
ence to-day. The anti-imperialists in these days are very few
in Massachusetts now. They are vocal, but not numerous.
But see what they said then. You would think that some of
these clauses emanated from Kansas City, only they are a good
deal better written. (Laughter.)

" The Legislature of Massachusetts, deeply impressed with the
sufferings of their constituents, and incited by the prospect of
still greater evils in prospect, feel impelled by a solemn sense of
duty to lay before the national government their view of the
public interest, and to express in plainness of form the senti-
ments of the people of this ancient and extensive commonwealth.
Were not the territories of the United States sufficiently exten-
sive before any acquisition of Louisiana, the projected reduction
of Canada and the seizure of Florida ? Had we not millions
upon millions of uncultivated wilderness, scarcely explored by
civilized man? Can these acquisitions be held as conquered
provinces without powerful standing armies ? And will they
not, like other infant colonies, serve as perpetual drains upon the


blood and treasure of these United States ? Or is it seriously
intended to adopt the dangerous project of forming them into
new States and admitting them into the Union, without the
express consent of every member of the original confederacy ?
Would not such a measure have a direct tendency to destroy the
obligations of the compact by which alone our Union is main-
tained ? Or have we to witness the formation of States beyond
the territorial limits of the United States, and this, too, in opposi-
tion to the wishes and eiforts, as well as in violation of the rights
and interests of some of the parties to that compact, and with a
determination to extend our Republic to regions hitherto unex-
plored, to be peopled by inhabitants whose habits, language, reli-
gion and laws are repugnant to the genius of our government?"

It sounded very dreadful then ; it looks very silly now. Some
of the utterances we have heard and seen within the last few
months sound very dreadful now, but they will look very silly
by and by.

Danger to the Republic by expansion ? Why, out of the ter-
ritory that that remonstrance condemned, and which was
denounced in Congress, out of that territory have arisen nine or
ten great American States — great, flourishing States — and all of
that land of Louisiana was taken without the consent of the gov-
erned. Nobody's consent was asked. Mr. Jefferson bought it
from Napoleon, and there were fifty thousand white people at the
mouth of the Mississippi, too. Jefferson governed it by Act of
Congress, with powers larger than were enjoyed by the Spanish
governor. To-day I do not think that the people of Iowa,
Kansas and the rest of these great commonwealths want to go
away any more than we want to have them go. They seem
free, they seem contented.



Danger to the Republic by expansion ? Expanding as the
laws of growth demand ? No. The life of the Republic was
never in danger but once. It was in danger for four years when
the very life of the nation was at stake. Men were not trying
to expand it then ; they were trying to divide it and make it
smaller. (Applause.)

It all comes down to one thing. When you come to discuss
this question and analyze the opposition, it all grows out of one
proposition: that we are not able to trust ourselves; that we can-
not trust ourselves to deal with the Philippine islands, that we
distrust the good intent of the American people. Imperialism
and militarism are rubbish, and ought to be sent to the rubbish
heap. What we ought to do with these islands, how we shall
govern them, that indeed is a great question of national policy ;
it is a question which cannot be too much discussed by the
American people. I am very sorry that it should be other than
an American question, and if all parties had the same faith in
the future of the country and the future of the people, and the
capacity and the courage and the honesty of the people, that we
have, it would not be a political question at all. (Applause.)
It ought not to be, for by ratifying that treaty we made those
islands ours, because a treaty ratified is the supreme law of the
land. But now the leader of the mixed ticket and his follow-
ers are making it a question of creating sympathy for Aguinaldo.
He had attacked the troops of the United States, and the
authority of the United States in Manila under that treaty was


Online LibraryHenry Cabot LodgeAddress by Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge .. → online text (page 1 of 2)