{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-12:our-new-possessions",
  "slug": "our-new-possessions",
  "title": "Our New Possessions",
  "subtitle": "On Cuba, the Philippines, and the territorial gains of 1898.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's view on what the United States should do with Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.",
  "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/our-new-possessions/",
  "wordCount": 2976,
  "body": "AS I understand it, the United States went into this war against Spain\nin the cause of freedom. For three years Spain has been endeavoring\nto conquer these people. The means employed were savage. Hundreds\nof thousands were starved. Yet the Cubans, with great heroism, were\ncontinuing the struggle. In spite of their burned homes, their wasted\nfields, their dead comrades, the Cubans were not conquered and still\nwaged war. Under those circumstances we said to Spain, \"You must\nwithdraw from the Western World. The Cubans have the right to be free!\"\nThey have been robbed and enslaved by Spanish officers and soldiers.\nUndoubtedly they were savages when first found, and undoubtedly they are\nworse now than when discovered—more barbarous. They wouldn't make\nvery good citizens of the United States; they are probably incapable\nof self-government, but no people can be ignorant enough to be justly\nrobbed or savage enough to be rightly enslaved. I think that we should\nkeep the islands, not for our own sake, but for the sake of these\npeople.\n\nIt was understood and declared at the time, that we were not waging war\nfor the sake of territory, that we were not trying to annex Cuba, but\nthat we were moved by compassion—a compassion that became as stern as\njustice. I did not think at the time there would be war. I supposed that\nthe Spanish people had some sense, that they knew their own condition\nand the condition of this Republic. But the improbable happened, and\nnow, after the successes we have had, the end of the war appears to be\nin sight, and the question arises: What shall we do with the Spanish\nislands that we have taken already, or that we may take before peace\ncomes?\n\nOf course, we could not, without stultifying ourselves and committing\nthe greatest of crimes, hand back Cuba to Spain. But to do that would be\nno more criminal, no more infamous, than to hand back the Philippines.\nIn those islands there are from eight to ten millions of people.\n\nAs far as the Philippines are concerned, I think that we should endeavor\nto civilize them, and to do this we should send teachers, not preachers.\nWe should not endeavor to give them our superstition in place of\nSpanish superstition. They have had superstition enough. They don't\nneed churches, they need schools. We should teach them our arts; how to\ncultivate the soil, how to manufacture the things they need. In other\nwords, we should deal honestly with them, and try our best to make them\na self-supporting and a self-governing people. The eagle should spread\nits wings over those islands for that and for no other purpose. We can\nnot afford to give them to other nations or to throw fragments of them\nto the wild beasts of Europe. We can not say to Russia, \"You may have a\npart,\" and to Germany, \"You may have a share,\" and to France, \"You take\nsomething,\" and so divide out these people as thieves divide plunder.\nThat we will never do.\n\nThere is, moreover, in my mind, a little sentiment mixed with this\nmatter. Manila Bay has been filled with American glory. There was won\none of our greatest triumphs, one of the greatest naval victories of the\nworld—won by American courage and genius. We can not allow any other\nnation to become the owner of the stage on which this American drama was\nplayed. I know that we can be of great assistance to the inhabitants of\nthe Philippines. I know that we can be an unmixed blessing to them, and\nthat is the only ambition I have in regard to those islands. I would no\nmore think of handing them back to Spain than I would of butchering the\nentire population in cold blood. Spain is unfit to govern. Spain has\nalways been a robber. She has never made an effort to civilize a human\nbeing. The history of Spain, I think, is the darkest page in the history\nof the world.\n\nAt the same time I have a kind of pity for the Spanish people. I feel\nthat they have been victims—victims of superstition. Their blood has\nbeen sucked, their energies have been wasted and misdirected, and they\nexcite my sympathies. Of course, there are many good Spaniards, good\nmen, good women. Cervera appears to be a civilized man, a gentleman, and\nI feel obliged to him for his treatment of Hobson. The great mass of\nthe Spaniards, however, must be exceedingly ignorant. Their so-called\nleaders dare not tell them the truth about the progress of this war.\nThey seem to be afraid to state the facts. They always commence with a\nlie, then change it a little, then change it a little more, and may be\nat last tell the truth. They never seem to dare to tell the truth at\nfirst, if the truth is bad. They put me in mind of the story of a man\ntelegraphing to a wife about the condition of her husband. The first\ndispatch was, \"Your husband is well, never better.\" The second was,\n\"Your husband is sick, but not very.\" The third was, \"Your husband is\nmuch worse, but we still have hope.\" The fourth was, \"You may as well\nknow the truth—we buried your husband yesterday.\" That is about the way\nthe Spanish people get their war news.\n\nThat is why it may be incorrect to assume that peace is coming quickly.\nIf the Spaniards were a normal people, who acted as other folks do, we\nmight prophesy a speedy peace, but nobody has prophetic vision enough\nto tell what such a people will do. In spite of all appearances, and all\nour successes, and of all sense, the war may drag on. But I hope not,\nnot only for our own sake, but for the sake of the Spaniards themselves.\nI can't help thinking of the poor peasants who will be killed, neither\ncan I help thinking of the poor peasants who will have to toil for many\nyears on the melancholy fields of Spain to pay the cost of this war. I\nam sorry for them, and I am sorry also for the widows and orphans, and\nno one will be more delighted when peace comes.\n\nThe argument has been advanced in the National Senate and elsewhere,\nthat the Federal Constitution makes no provision for the holding of\ncolonies or dependencies, such as the Philippines would be; that we can\nonly acquire them as territories, and eventually must take them in\nas States, with their population of mixed and inferior races. That is\nhardly an effective argument.\n\nWhen this country was an infant, still in its cradle, George Washington\ngave the child some very good advice; told him to beware of entangling\nalliances, to stay at home and attend to his own business. Under the\ncircumstances this was all very good. But the infant has been growing,\nand the Republic is now one of the most powerful nations in the world,\nand yet, from its infant days until now, good, conservative people have\nbeen repeating the advice of Washington. It was repeated again and again\nwhen we were talking about purchasing Louisiana, and many Senators and\nCongressmen became hysterical and predicted the fall of the Republic if\nthat was done. The same thing took place when we purchased Florida, and\nagain when we got one million square miles from Mexico, and still again\nwhen we bought Alaska. These ideas about violating the Constitution and\nwrecking the Republic were promulgated by our great and wise statesmen\non all these previous occasions, but, after all, the Constitution seems\nto have borne the strain. There seems to be as much liberty now as there\nwas then, and, in fact, a great deal more. Our Territories have given us\nno trouble, while they have greatly added to our population and vastly\nincreased our wealth.\n\nBeside this, the statesmen of the olden time, the wise men with whom\nwisdom was supposed to have perished, could not and did not imagine the\nimprovements that would take place after they were gone. In their time,\npractically speaking, it was farther from New York to Buffalo than it is\nnow from New York to San Francisco, and so far as the transportation of\nintelligence is concerned, San Francisco is as near New York as it would\nhave been in their day had it been just across the Harlem River. Taking\ninto consideration the railways, the telegraphs and the telephones, this\ncountry now, with its area of three million five hundred thousand square\nmiles, is not so large as the thirteen original colonies were; that is\nto say, the distances are more easily traveled and more easily overcome.\nIn those days it required months and months to cross the continent. Now\nit is the work of four or five days.\n\nYet, when we came to talk about annexing the Hawaiian Islands, the\nadvice of George Washington was again repeated, and the older the\nSenator the fonder he was of this advice. These Senators had the idea\nthat the Constitution, having nothing in favor of it, must contain\nsomething, at least in spirit, against it. Of course, our fathers had\nno idea of the growth of the Republic. We have, because with us it is a\nmatter of experience. I don't see that Alaska has imperiled any of the\nliberties of New York. We need not admit Alaska as a State unless it has\na population entitling it to admission, and we are not bound to take in\nthe Sandwich Islands until the people are civilized, until they are fit\ncompanions of free men and free women. It may be that a good many of our\ncitizens will go to the Sandwich Islands, and that, in a short time,\nthe people there will be ready to be admitted as a State. All this the\nConstitution can stand, and in it there is no danger of imperialism.\n\nI believe in national growth. As a rule, the prosperous farmer wants to\nbuy the land that adjoins him, and I think a prosperous nation has the\nambition of growth. It is better to expand than to shrivel; and, if our\nConstitution is too narrow to spread over the territory that we have\nthe courage to acquire, why we can make a broader one. It is a very easy\nmatter to make a constitution, and no human happiness, no prosperity,\nno progress should be sacrificed for the sake of a piece of paper with\nwriting on it; because there is plenty of paper and plenty of men to do\nthe writing, and plenty of people to say what the writing should be.\nI take more interest in people than I do in constitutions. I regard\nconstitutions as secondary; they are means to an end, but the dear,\nold, conservative gentlemen seem to regard constitutions as ends in\nthemselves.\n\nI have read what ex-President Cleveland had to say on this important\nsubject, and I am happy to say that I entirely disagree with him. So,\ntoo, I disagree with Senator Edmunds, and with Mr. Bryan, and with\nSenator Hoar, and with all the other gentlemen who wish to stop the\ngrowth of the Republic. I want it to grow.\n\nAs to the final destiny of the island possessions won from Spain, my\nidea is that the Philippine Islands will finally be free, protected, it\nmay be for a long time, by the United States. I think Cuba will come to\nus for protection, naturally, and, so far as I am concerned, I want\nCuba only when Cuba wants us. I think that Porto Rico and some of those\nislands will belong permanently to the United States, and I believe Cuba\nwill finally become a part of our Republic.\n\nWhen the opponents of progress found that they couldn't make the\nAmerican people take the back track by holding up their hands over the\nConstitution, they dragged in the Monroe doctrine. When we concluded not\nto allow Spain any longer to enslave her colonists, or the people who\nhad been her colonists, in the New World, that was a very humane and\nwise resolve, and it was strictly in accord with the Monroe doctrine.\nFor the purpose of conquering Spain, we attacked her fleet in Manila\nBay, and destroyed it. I can not conceive how that action of ours can\nbe twisted into a violation of the Monroe doctrine. The most that can be\nsaid is, that it is an extension of that doctrine, and that we are now\nsaying to Spain, \"You shall not enslave, you shall not rob, anywhere\nthat we have the power to prevent it.\"\n\nHaving taken the Philippines, the same humanity that dictated the\ndeclaration of what is called the Monroe doctrine, will force us to act\nthere in accordance with the spirit of that doctrine. The other day I\nsaw in the paper an extract, I think, from Goldwin Smith, in which\nhe says that if we were to bombard Cadiz we would give up the Monroe\ndoctrine. I do not see the application. We are at war with Spain, and we\nhave a right to invade that country, and the invasion would have nothing\nwhatever to do with the Monroe doctrine. War being declared, we have\nthe right to do anything consistent with civilized warfare to gain the\nvictory. The bombardment of Cadiz would have no more to do with the\nMonroe doctrine than with the attraction of gravitation. If, by the\nMonroe doctrine is meant that we have agreed to stay in this hemisphere,\nand to prevent other nations from interfering with any people\non this hemisphere, and if it is said that, growing out of this, is\nanother doctrine, namely, that we are pledged not to interfere with\nany people living on the other hemisphere, then it might be called a\nviolation of the Monroe doctrine for us to bombard Cadiz. But such is\nnot the Monroe doctrine. If, we being at war with England, she should\nbombard the city of New York, or we should bombard some city of England,\nwould anybody say that either nation had violated the Monroe doctrine? I\ndo not see how that doctrine is involved, whether we fight at sea or on\nthe territory of the enemy.\n\nThis is the first war, so far as I know, in the history of the world\nthat has been waged absolutely in the interest of humanity; the only\nwar born of pity, of sympathy; and for that reason I have taken a deep\ninterest in it, and I must say that I was greatly astonished by the\nvictory of Admiral Dewey in Manila Bay. I think it one of the most\nwonderful in the history of the world, and I think all that Dewey\nhas done shows clearly that he is a man of thought, of courage and of\ngenius. So, too, the victory over the fleet of Cervera by Commodore\nSchley, is one of the most marvelous and the most brilliant in all\nthe annals of the world. The marksmanship, the courage, the absolute\nprecision with which everything was done, is to my mind astonishing.\nNeither should we forget Wainwright's heroic exploit, as commander of\nthe Gloucester, by which he demonstrated that torpedo destroyers have\nno terrors for a yacht manned by American pluck. Manila Bay and Santiago\nboth are surpassingly wonderful. There are no words with which to\ndescribe such deeds—deeds that leap like flames above the clouds and\nglorify the whole heavens.\n\nThe Spanish have shown in this contest that they possess courage, and\nthey have displayed what you might call the heroism of desperation,\nbut the Anglo-Saxon has courage and coolness—courage not blinded by\npassion, courage that is the absolute servant of intelligence. The\nAnglo-Saxon has a fixedness of purpose that is never interfered with by\nfeeling; he does not become enraged—he becomes firm, unyielding, his\nmind is absolutely made up, clasped, locked, and he carries out his\nwill. With the Spaniard it is excitement, nervousness; he becomes\nfrantic. I think this war has shown the superiority, not simply of our\nships, or our armor, or our guns, but the superiority of our men, of\nour officers, of our gunners. The courage of our army about Santiago was\nsplendid, the steadiness and bravery of the volunteers magnificent. I\nthink that what has already been done has given us the admiration of the\ncivilized world.\n\nI know, of course, that some countries hate us. Germany is filled with\nmalice, and has been just on the crumbling edge of meanness for months,\nwishing but not daring to interfere; hateful, hostile, but keeping just\nwithin the overt act. We could teach Germany a lesson and her ships\nwould go down before ours just the same as the Spanish ships have done.\nSometimes I have almost wished that a hostile German shot might be\nfired. But I think we will get even with Germany and with France—at\nleast I hope so.\n\nAnd there is another thing I hope—that the good feeling now existing\nbetween England and the United States may be eternal. In other words,\nI hope it will be to the interests of both to be friends. I think the\nEnglish-speaking peoples are to rule this world. They are the kings of\ninvention, of manufactures, of commerce, of administration, and they\nhave a higher conception of human liberty than any other people. Of\ncourse, they are not entirely free; they still have some of the rags and\ntatters and ravelings of superstition; but they are tatters and they are\nrags and they are ravelings, and the people know it. And, besides all\nthis, the English language holds the greatest literature of the world.\n"
}