A Few Fragments on Expansion
On American territorial expansion.

by Robert G. Ingersoll
(1898)

From The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll (Dresden Edition, 1900–1902), Volume 12.
Source: https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/a-few-fragments-on-expansion/
Public domain. CC0 / Public Domain Mark 1.0.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

A NATION rises from infancy to manhood and sinks from dotage to death.
I think that the great Republic is in the morning of her life—the sun
just above the horizon—the grass still wet with dew.

Our country has the courage and enthusiasm of youth—her blood flows
full—her heart beats strong and her brow is fair. We stand on
the threshold of a great, a sublime career. All the conditions are
favorable—the environment kind. The best part of this hemisphere is
ours. We have a thousand million acres of fertile land, vast forests,
whole States underlaid with coal; ranges of mountains filled with
iron, silver and gold, and we have seventy-five millions of the most
energetic, active, inventive, progressive and practical people in the
world. The great Republic is a happy combination of mind and muscle, of
head and heart, of courage and good nature. We are growing. We have the
instinct of expansion. We are full of life and health. We are about to
take our rightful place at the head of the nations. The great powers
have been struggling to obtain markets. They are fighting for the trade
of the East. They are contending for China. We watched, but we did
not act. They paid no attention to us or we to them. Conditions have
changed. We own the Hawaiian Islands. We will own the Philippines.

Japan and China will be our neighbors—our customers. Our interests must
be protected. In China we want the "open door," and we will see to it
that the door is kept open. The nation that tries to shut it, will get
its fingers pinched. We have taught the Old World that the Republic must
be consulted. We have entered on the great highway, and we are destined
to become the most powerful, the most successful and the most generous
of nations. I am for expansion. The more people beneath the flag the
better. Let the Republic grow..

I BELIEVE in growth. Of course there are many moss-back conservatives
who fear expansion. Thousands opposed the purchase of Louisiana from
Napoleon, thousands were against the acquisition of Florida and of the
vast territory we obtained from Mexico. So, thousands were against the
purchase of Alaska, and some dear old mummies opposed the annexation
of the Sandwich Islands, and yet, I do not believe that there is an
intelligent American who would like to part with one acre that has
been acquired by the Government. Now, there are some timid, withered
statesmen who do not want Porto Rico—who beg us in a trembling,
patriotic voice not to keep the Philippines. But the sensible people
feel exactly the other way. They love to see our borders extended.
They love to see the flag floating over the islands of the
tropics,—showering its blessings upon the poor people who have been
robbed and tortured by the Spanish. Let the Republic grow! Let us spread
the gospel of Freedom! In a few years I hope that Canada will be ours—I
want Mexico—in other words, I want all of North America. I want to see
our flag waving from the North Pole.

I think it was a mistake to appoint a peace commission. The President
should have demanded the unconditional surrender of Cuba, Porto Rico
and the Philippines. Spain was helpless. The war would have ended on our
terms, and all this commission nonsense would have been saved. Still, I
make no complaint. It will probably come out right, though it would have
been far better to have ended the business when we could—when Spain
was prostrate. It was foolish to let her get up and catch her breath and
hunt for friends.

ONLY a few days ago our President, by proclamation, thanked God for
giving us the victory at Santiago. He did not thank him for sending the
yellow fever. To be consistent the President should have thanked him
equally for both. Man should think; he should use all his senses; he
should examine; he should reason. The man who cannot think is less than
man; the man who will not think is a traitor to himself; the man who
fears to think is superstition's slave. I do not thank God for the
splendid victory in Manila Bay. I don't know whether he had anything
to do with it; if I find out that he did I will thank him readily.
Meanwhile, I will thank Admiral George Dewey and the brave fellows who
were with him.

I do not thank God for the destruction of Cervera's fleet at Santiago.
No, I thank Schley and the men with the trained eyes and the nerves of
steel, who stood behind the guns. I do not thank God because we won
the battle of Santiago. I thank the Regular Army, black and white—the
Volunteers—the Rough Riders, and all the men who made the grand charge
at San Juan Hill. I have asked, "Why should God help us to whip Spain?"
and have been answered: "For the sake of the Cubans, who have been
crushed and ill-treated by their Spanish masters." Then why did not God
help the Cubans long before? Certainly, they were fighting long enough
and needed his help badly enough. But, I am told, God's ways are
inscrutable. Suppose Spain had whipped us; would the Christians then say
that God did it? Very likely they would, and would have as an excuse,
that we broke the Sabbath with our base-ball, our bicycles and bloomers.

Is it Ever Right for Husband or Wife to Kill Rival

HOW far should a husband or wife go in defending the sanctity of home?

Is it right for the husband to kill the paramour of his wife?

Is it right for the wife to kill the paramour of her husband?

These three questions are in substance one, and one answer will be
sufficient for all.

In the first place, we should have an understanding of the real relation
that exists, or should exist, between husband and wife.

The real good orthodox people, those who admire St. Paul, look upon the
wife as the property of the husband. He owns, not only her body, but her
very soul. This being the case, no other man has the right to steal
or try to steal this property. The owner has the right to defend his
possession, even to the death. In the olden time the husband was
never regarded as the property of the wife. She had a claim on him for
support, and there was usually some way to enforce the claim. If
the husband deserted the wife for the sake of some other woman, or
transferred his affections to another, the wife, as a rule, suffered in
silence. Sometimes she took her revenge on the woman, but generally she
did nothing. Men killed the "destroyers" of their homes, but the women,
having no homes, being only wives, nothing but mothers—bearers of babes
for masters—allowed their destroyers to live.

In recent years women have advanced. They have stepped to the front.
Wives are no longer slaves. They are the equals of husbands. They have
homes to defend, husbands to protect and "destroyers" to kill. The
rights of husbands and wives are now equal. They live under the same
moral code. Their obligations to each other are mutual. Both are bound,
and equally bound, to live virtuous lives.

Now, if A falls in love with the wife of B, and she returns his love,
has B the right to kill him? Or if A falls in love with the husband of
B, and he returns her love, has B the right to kill her?

If the wronged husband has the right to kill, so has the wronged wife.

Suppose that a young man and woman are engaged to be married, and that
she falls in love with another and marries him, has the first lover a
right to kill the last?

This leads me to another question: What is marriage? Men and women
cannot truly be married by any set or form of words, or by any
ceremonies however solemn, or by contract signed, sealed and witnessed,
or by the words or declarations of priests or judges. All these put
together do not constitute marriage. At the very best they are only
evidences of the fact of marriage—something that really happened
between the parties. Without pure, honest, mutual love there can be no
real marriage. Marriage without love is only a form of prostitution.
Marriage for the sake of position or wealth is immoral. No good,
sensible man wants to marry a woman whose heart is not absolutely his,
and no good, sensible woman wants to marry a man whose heart is not
absolutely hers. Now, if there can be no real marriage without mutual
love, does the marriage outlast the love? If it is immoral for a woman
to marry a man without loving him, is it moral for her to live as the
wife of a man whom she has ceased to love? Is she bound by the words, by
the ceremony, after the real marriage is dead? Is she so bound that the
man she hates has the right to be the father of her babes?

If a girl is engaged and afterward meets her ideal, a young man whose
presence is joy, whose touch is ecstasy, is it her duty to fulfill her
engagement? Would it not be a thousand times nobler and purer for her to
say to the first lover: "I thought I loved you; I was mistaken. I belong
heart and soul to another, and if I married you I could not be yours."

So, if a young man is engaged and finds that he has made a mistake, is
it honorable for him to keep his contract? Would it not be far nobler
for him to tell her the truth?

The civilized man loves a woman not only for his own sake, but for
her sake. He longs to make her happy—to fill her life with joy. He
is willing to make sacrifices for her, but he does not want her to
sacrifice herself for him. The civilized husband wants his wife to be
free—wants the love that she cannot help giving him. He does not want
her, from a sense of duty, or because of the contract or ceremony, to
act as though she loved him, when in fact her heart is far away. He
does not want her to pollute her soul and live a lie for his sake. The
civilized husband places the happiness of his wife above his own. Her
love is the wealth of his heart, and to guard her from evil is the
business of his life.

But the civilized husband knows when his wife ceases to love him that
the real marriage has also ceased. He knows that it is then infamous for
him to compel her to remain his wife. He knows that it is her right
to be free—that her body belongs to her, that her soul is her own. He
knows, too, if he knows anything, that her affection is not the slave of
her will.

In a case like this, the civilized husband would, so far as he had
the power, release his wife from the contract of marriage, divide his
property fairly with her and do what he could for her welfare. Civilized
love never turns to hatred.

Suppose he should find that there was a man in the case, that another
had won her love, or that she had given her love to another, would it
then be his right or duty to kill that man? Would the killing do any
good? Would it bring back her love? Would it reunite the family? Would
it annihilate the disgrace or the memory of the shame? Would it lessen
the husband's loss?

Society says that the husband should kill the man because he led the
woman astray.

How do we know that he betrayed the woman? Mrs. Potiphar left many
daughters, and Joseph certainly had but few sons. How do we know that
it was not the husband's fault? She may for years have shivered in the
winter of his neglect. She may have borne his cruelties of word and deed
until her love w'as dead and buried side by side with hope. Another man
comes into her life. He pities her. She looks and loves. He lifts her
from the grave. Again she really lives, and her poor heart is rich with
love's red blood. Ought this man to be killed? He has robbed no husband,
wronged no man. He has rescued a victim, released an innocent prisoner
and made a life worth living. But the brutal husband says that the wife
has been led astray; that he has been wronged and dishonored, and that
it is his right, his duty, to shed the seducer's blood. He finds the
facts himself. He is witness, jury, judge and executioner. He forgets
his neglect, his cruelties, his faithlessness; forgets that he drove her
from his heart, remembers only that she loves another, and then in the
name of justice he takes the life of the one she loves.

A husband deserts his wife, leaves her without money, without the means
to live, with his babes in her arms. She cannot get a divorce; she must
wait, and in the meantime she must live. A man falls in love with her
and she with him. He takes care of her and the deserted children. The
"wronged" husband returns and kills the "betrayer" of his wife. He
believes in the sacredness of marriage, the holiness of home.

It may be admitted that the deserted wife did wrong, and that the man
who cared for her and her worse than fatherless children also did wrong,
but certainly he had done nothing for which he deserved to be murdered.

A woman finds that her husband is in love with another woman, that he
is false, and the question is whether it is her right to kill the other
woman. The wronged husband has always claimed that the man led his wife
astray, that he had crept and crawled into his Eden, but now the wronged
wife claims that the woman seduced her husband, that she spread the
net, wove the web and baited the trap in which the innocent husband was
caught. Thereupon she kills the other woman.

In the first place, how can she be sure of the facts? How does she know
whose fault it was? Possibly she was to blame herself.

But what good has the killing done? It will not give her back her
husband's love. It will not cool the fervor of her jealousy. It will not
give her better sleep or happier dreams.

It would have been far better if she had said to her husband: "Go with
the woman you love. I do not want your body without your heart, your
presence without your love."

So, it would be better for the wronged husband to say to the unfaithful
wife: "Go with the man you love. Your heart is his, I am not your
master. You are free."

After all, murder is a poor remedy. If you kill a man for one wrong, why
not for another? If you take the law into your own hands and kill a man
because he loves your wife and your wife loves him, why not kill him for
any injury he may inflict on you or yours?...

In a civilized nation the people are governed by law. They do not
redress their own wrongs. They submit their differences to courts. If
they are wronged they appeal to the law. Savages redress what they call
their wrongs. They appeal to knife or gun. They kill, they assassinate,
they murder; and they do this to preserve their honor. Admit that the
seducer of the wife deserves death, that the woman who leads the husband
astray deserves death, admit that both have justly forfeited their
lives, the question yet remains whether the wronged husband and the
wronged wife have the right to commit murder.

If they have this right, then there ought to be some way provided for
ascertaining the facts. Before the husband kills the "betrayer," the
fact that the wife was really led astray should be established, and the
"wronged" husband who claims the right to kill, should show that he had
been a good, loving and true husband.

As a rule, the wives of good and generous men are true and faithful.
They love their homes, they adore their children. In poverty and
disaster they cling the closer. But when husbands are indolent and mean,
when they are cruel and selfish, when they make a hell of home, why
should we insist that their wives should love them still?

When the civilized man finds that his wife loves another he does not
kill, he does not murder. He says to his wife, "You are free."

When the civilized woman finds that her husband loves another she does
not kill, she does not murder. She says to her husband, "I am free."
This, in my judgment, is the better way. It is in accordance with a far
higher philosophy of life, of the real rights of others. The civilized
man is governed by his reason, his intelligence; the savage by his
passions. The civilized, man seeks for the right, regardless of himself;
the savage for revenge, regardless of the rights of others.

I do not believe that murder guards the sacredness of home, the purity
of the fireside. I do not believe that crime wins victories for virtue.
I believe in liberty and I believe in law. That country is free where
the people make and honestly uphold the law. I am opposed to a redress
of grievances or the punishment of criminals by mobs and I am equally
opposed to giving the "wronged" husbands and the "wronged" wives the
right to kill the men and women they suspect. In other words, I believe
in civilization.

A few years ago a merchant living in the West suspected that his wife
and bookkeeper were in love. One morning he started for a distant city,
pretending that he would be absent for a couple of weeks. He came back
that night and found the lovers occupying the same room. He did not kill
the man, but said to him: "Take her; she is yours. Treat her well
and you will not be troubled. Abuse or desert her and I will be her
avenger."

He did not kill his wife, but said: "We part forever. You are entitled
to one-half of the property we have accumulated. You shall have it.
Farewell!"

The merchant was a civilized man—a philosopher.
