{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-12:a-few-fragments-on-expansion",
  "slug": "a-few-fragments-on-expansion",
  "title": "A Few Fragments on Expansion",
  "subtitle": "On American territorial expansion.",
  "excerpt": "A late essay on the expansionist temper of the United States at the end of the nineteenth century.",
  "year": 1898,
  "volume": 12,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/a-few-fragments-on-expansion/",
  "wordCount": 3145,
  "body": "A NATION rises from infancy to manhood and sinks from dotage to death.\nI think that the great Republic is in the morning of her life—the sun\njust above the horizon—the grass still wet with dew.\n\nOur country has the courage and enthusiasm of youth—her blood flows\nfull—her heart beats strong and her brow is fair. We stand on\nthe threshold of a great, a sublime career. All the conditions are\nfavorable—the environment kind. The best part of this hemisphere is\nours. We have a thousand million acres of fertile land, vast forests,\nwhole States underlaid with coal; ranges of mountains filled with\niron, silver and gold, and we have seventy-five millions of the most\nenergetic, active, inventive, progressive and practical people in the\nworld. The great Republic is a happy combination of mind and muscle, of\nhead and heart, of courage and good nature. We are growing. We have the\ninstinct of expansion. We are full of life and health. We are about to\ntake our rightful place at the head of the nations. The great powers\nhave been struggling to obtain markets. They are fighting for the trade\nof the East. They are contending for China. We watched, but we did\nnot act. They paid no attention to us or we to them. Conditions have\nchanged. We own the Hawaiian Islands. We will own the Philippines.\n\nJapan and China will be our neighbors—our customers. Our interests must\nbe protected. In China we want the \"open door,\" and we will see to it\nthat the door is kept open. The nation that tries to shut it, will get\nits fingers pinched. We have taught the Old World that the Republic must\nbe consulted. We have entered on the great highway, and we are destined\nto become the most powerful, the most successful and the most generous\nof nations. I am for expansion. The more people beneath the flag the\nbetter. Let the Republic grow..\n\nI BELIEVE in growth. Of course there are many moss-back conservatives\nwho fear expansion. Thousands opposed the purchase of Louisiana from\nNapoleon, thousands were against the acquisition of Florida and of the\nvast territory we obtained from Mexico. So, thousands were against the\npurchase of Alaska, and some dear old mummies opposed the annexation\nof the Sandwich Islands, and yet, I do not believe that there is an\nintelligent American who would like to part with one acre that has\nbeen acquired by the Government. Now, there are some timid, withered\nstatesmen who do not want Porto Rico—who beg us in a trembling,\npatriotic voice not to keep the Philippines. But the sensible people\nfeel exactly the other way. They love to see our borders extended.\nThey love to see the flag floating over the islands of the\ntropics,—showering its blessings upon the poor people who have been\nrobbed and tortured by the Spanish. Let the Republic grow! Let us spread\nthe gospel of Freedom! In a few years I hope that Canada will be ours—I\nwant Mexico—in other words, I want all of North America. I want to see\nour flag waving from the North Pole.\n\nI think it was a mistake to appoint a peace commission. The President\nshould have demanded the unconditional surrender of Cuba, Porto Rico\nand the Philippines. Spain was helpless. The war would have ended on our\nterms, and all this commission nonsense would have been saved. Still, I\nmake no complaint. It will probably come out right, though it would have\nbeen far better to have ended the business when we could—when Spain\nwas prostrate. It was foolish to let her get up and catch her breath and\nhunt for friends.\n\nONLY a few days ago our President, by proclamation, thanked God for\ngiving us the victory at Santiago. He did not thank him for sending the\nyellow fever. To be consistent the President should have thanked him\nequally for both. Man should think; he should use all his senses; he\nshould examine; he should reason. The man who cannot think is less than\nman; the man who will not think is a traitor to himself; the man who\nfears to think is superstition's slave. I do not thank God for the\nsplendid victory in Manila Bay. I don't know whether he had anything\nto do with it; if I find out that he did I will thank him readily.\nMeanwhile, I will thank Admiral George Dewey and the brave fellows who\nwere with him.\n\nI do not thank God for the destruction of Cervera's fleet at Santiago.\nNo, I thank Schley and the men with the trained eyes and the nerves of\nsteel, who stood behind the guns. I do not thank God because we won\nthe battle of Santiago. I thank the Regular Army, black and white—the\nVolunteers—the Rough Riders, and all the men who made the grand charge\nat San Juan Hill. I have asked, \"Why should God help us to whip Spain?\"\nand have been answered: \"For the sake of the Cubans, who have been\ncrushed and ill-treated by their Spanish masters.\" Then why did not God\nhelp the Cubans long before? Certainly, they were fighting long enough\nand needed his help badly enough. But, I am told, God's ways are\ninscrutable. Suppose Spain had whipped us; would the Christians then say\nthat God did it? Very likely they would, and would have as an excuse,\nthat we broke the Sabbath with our base-ball, our bicycles and bloomers.\n\nIs it Ever Right for Husband or Wife to Kill Rival\n\nHOW far should a husband or wife go in defending the sanctity of home?\n\nIs it right for the husband to kill the paramour of his wife?\n\nIs it right for the wife to kill the paramour of her husband?\n\nThese three questions are in substance one, and one answer will be\nsufficient for all.\n\nIn the first place, we should have an understanding of the real relation\nthat exists, or should exist, between husband and wife.\n\nThe real good orthodox people, those who admire St. Paul, look upon the\nwife as the property of the husband. He owns, not only her body, but her\nvery soul. This being the case, no other man has the right to steal\nor try to steal this property. The owner has the right to defend his\npossession, even to the death. In the olden time the husband was\nnever regarded as the property of the wife. She had a claim on him for\nsupport, and there was usually some way to enforce the claim. If\nthe husband deserted the wife for the sake of some other woman, or\ntransferred his affections to another, the wife, as a rule, suffered in\nsilence. Sometimes she took her revenge on the woman, but generally she\ndid nothing. Men killed the \"destroyers\" of their homes, but the women,\nhaving no homes, being only wives, nothing but mothers—bearers of babes\nfor masters—allowed their destroyers to live.\n\nIn recent years women have advanced. They have stepped to the front.\nWives are no longer slaves. They are the equals of husbands. They have\nhomes to defend, husbands to protect and \"destroyers\" to kill. The\nrights of husbands and wives are now equal. They live under the same\nmoral code. Their obligations to each other are mutual. Both are bound,\nand equally bound, to live virtuous lives.\n\nNow, if A falls in love with the wife of B, and she returns his love,\nhas B the right to kill him? Or if A falls in love with the husband of\nB, and he returns her love, has B the right to kill her?\n\nIf the wronged husband has the right to kill, so has the wronged wife.\n\nSuppose that a young man and woman are engaged to be married, and that\nshe falls in love with another and marries him, has the first lover a\nright to kill the last?\n\nThis leads me to another question: What is marriage? Men and women\ncannot truly be married by any set or form of words, or by any\nceremonies however solemn, or by contract signed, sealed and witnessed,\nor by the words or declarations of priests or judges. All these put\ntogether do not constitute marriage. At the very best they are only\nevidences of the fact of marriage—something that really happened\nbetween the parties. Without pure, honest, mutual love there can be no\nreal marriage. Marriage without love is only a form of prostitution.\nMarriage for the sake of position or wealth is immoral. No good,\nsensible man wants to marry a woman whose heart is not absolutely his,\nand no good, sensible woman wants to marry a man whose heart is not\nabsolutely hers. Now, if there can be no real marriage without mutual\nlove, does the marriage outlast the love? If it is immoral for a woman\nto marry a man without loving him, is it moral for her to live as the\nwife of a man whom she has ceased to love? Is she bound by the words, by\nthe ceremony, after the real marriage is dead? Is she so bound that the\nman she hates has the right to be the father of her babes?\n\nIf a girl is engaged and afterward meets her ideal, a young man whose\npresence is joy, whose touch is ecstasy, is it her duty to fulfill her\nengagement? Would it not be a thousand times nobler and purer for her to\nsay to the first lover: \"I thought I loved you; I was mistaken. I belong\nheart and soul to another, and if I married you I could not be yours.\"\n\nSo, if a young man is engaged and finds that he has made a mistake, is\nit honorable for him to keep his contract? Would it not be far nobler\nfor him to tell her the truth?\n\nThe civilized man loves a woman not only for his own sake, but for\nher sake. He longs to make her happy—to fill her life with joy. He\nis willing to make sacrifices for her, but he does not want her to\nsacrifice herself for him. The civilized husband wants his wife to be\nfree—wants the love that she cannot help giving him. He does not want\nher, from a sense of duty, or because of the contract or ceremony, to\nact as though she loved him, when in fact her heart is far away. He\ndoes not want her to pollute her soul and live a lie for his sake. The\ncivilized husband places the happiness of his wife above his own. Her\nlove is the wealth of his heart, and to guard her from evil is the\nbusiness of his life.\n\nBut the civilized husband knows when his wife ceases to love him that\nthe real marriage has also ceased. He knows that it is then infamous for\nhim to compel her to remain his wife. He knows that it is her right\nto be free—that her body belongs to her, that her soul is her own. He\nknows, too, if he knows anything, that her affection is not the slave of\nher will.\n\nIn a case like this, the civilized husband would, so far as he had\nthe power, release his wife from the contract of marriage, divide his\nproperty fairly with her and do what he could for her welfare. Civilized\nlove never turns to hatred.\n\nSuppose he should find that there was a man in the case, that another\nhad won her love, or that she had given her love to another, would it\nthen be his right or duty to kill that man? Would the killing do any\ngood? Would it bring back her love? Would it reunite the family? Would\nit annihilate the disgrace or the memory of the shame? Would it lessen\nthe husband's loss?\n\nSociety says that the husband should kill the man because he led the\nwoman astray.\n\nHow do we know that he betrayed the woman? Mrs. Potiphar left many\ndaughters, and Joseph certainly had but few sons. How do we know that\nit was not the husband's fault? She may for years have shivered in the\nwinter of his neglect. She may have borne his cruelties of word and deed\nuntil her love w'as dead and buried side by side with hope. Another man\ncomes into her life. He pities her. She looks and loves. He lifts her\nfrom the grave. Again she really lives, and her poor heart is rich with\nlove's red blood. Ought this man to be killed? He has robbed no husband,\nwronged no man. He has rescued a victim, released an innocent prisoner\nand made a life worth living. But the brutal husband says that the wife\nhas been led astray; that he has been wronged and dishonored, and that\nit is his right, his duty, to shed the seducer's blood. He finds the\nfacts himself. He is witness, jury, judge and executioner. He forgets\nhis neglect, his cruelties, his faithlessness; forgets that he drove her\nfrom his heart, remembers only that she loves another, and then in the\nname of justice he takes the life of the one she loves.\n\nA husband deserts his wife, leaves her without money, without the means\nto live, with his babes in her arms. She cannot get a divorce; she must\nwait, and in the meantime she must live. A man falls in love with her\nand she with him. He takes care of her and the deserted children. The\n\"wronged\" husband returns and kills the \"betrayer\" of his wife. He\nbelieves in the sacredness of marriage, the holiness of home.\n\nIt may be admitted that the deserted wife did wrong, and that the man\nwho cared for her and her worse than fatherless children also did wrong,\nbut certainly he had done nothing for which he deserved to be murdered.\n\nA woman finds that her husband is in love with another woman, that he\nis false, and the question is whether it is her right to kill the other\nwoman. The wronged husband has always claimed that the man led his wife\nastray, that he had crept and crawled into his Eden, but now the wronged\nwife claims that the woman seduced her husband, that she spread the\nnet, wove the web and baited the trap in which the innocent husband was\ncaught. Thereupon she kills the other woman.\n\nIn the first place, how can she be sure of the facts? How does she know\nwhose fault it was? Possibly she was to blame herself.\n\nBut what good has the killing done? It will not give her back her\nhusband's love. It will not cool the fervor of her jealousy. It will not\ngive her better sleep or happier dreams.\n\nIt would have been far better if she had said to her husband: \"Go with\nthe woman you love. I do not want your body without your heart, your\npresence without your love.\"\n\nSo, it would be better for the wronged husband to say to the unfaithful\nwife: \"Go with the man you love. Your heart is his, I am not your\nmaster. You are free.\"\n\nAfter all, murder is a poor remedy. If you kill a man for one wrong, why\nnot for another? If you take the law into your own hands and kill a man\nbecause he loves your wife and your wife loves him, why not kill him for\nany injury he may inflict on you or yours?...\n\nIn a civilized nation the people are governed by law. They do not\nredress their own wrongs. They submit their differences to courts. If\nthey are wronged they appeal to the law. Savages redress what they call\ntheir wrongs. They appeal to knife or gun. They kill, they assassinate,\nthey murder; and they do this to preserve their honor. Admit that the\nseducer of the wife deserves death, that the woman who leads the husband\nastray deserves death, admit that both have justly forfeited their\nlives, the question yet remains whether the wronged husband and the\nwronged wife have the right to commit murder.\n\nIf they have this right, then there ought to be some way provided for\nascertaining the facts. Before the husband kills the \"betrayer,\" the\nfact that the wife was really led astray should be established, and the\n\"wronged\" husband who claims the right to kill, should show that he had\nbeen a good, loving and true husband.\n\nAs a rule, the wives of good and generous men are true and faithful.\nThey love their homes, they adore their children. In poverty and\ndisaster they cling the closer. But when husbands are indolent and mean,\nwhen they are cruel and selfish, when they make a hell of home, why\nshould we insist that their wives should love them still?\n\nWhen the civilized man finds that his wife loves another he does not\nkill, he does not murder. He says to his wife, \"You are free.\"\n\nWhen the civilized woman finds that her husband loves another she does\nnot kill, she does not murder. She says to her husband, \"I am free.\"\nThis, in my judgment, is the better way. It is in accordance with a far\nhigher philosophy of life, of the real rights of others. The civilized\nman is governed by his reason, his intelligence; the savage by his\npassions. The civilized, man seeks for the right, regardless of himself;\nthe savage for revenge, regardless of the rights of others.\n\nI do not believe that murder guards the sacredness of home, the purity\nof the fireside. I do not believe that crime wins victories for virtue.\nI believe in liberty and I believe in law. That country is free where\nthe people make and honestly uphold the law. I am opposed to a redress\nof grievances or the punishment of criminals by mobs and I am equally\nopposed to giving the \"wronged\" husbands and the \"wronged\" wives the\nright to kill the men and women they suspect. In other words, I believe\nin civilization.\n\nA few years ago a merchant living in the West suspected that his wife\nand bookkeeper were in love. One morning he started for a distant city,\npretending that he would be absent for a couple of weeks. He came back\nthat night and found the lovers occupying the same room. He did not kill\nthe man, but said to him: \"Take her; she is yours. Treat her well\nand you will not be troubled. Abuse or desert her and I will be her\navenger.\"\n\nHe did not kill his wife, but said: \"We part forever. You are entitled\nto one-half of the property we have accumulated. You shall have it.\nFarewell!\"\n\nThe merchant was a civilized man—a philosopher.\n"
}