Washington sentinel., 1900-04-14
Democratic vs.. Republican Expan
sion,

emily made by Republican poll
ticians, and even by some rene
gade Democrats, than that there
are Democratic precedents for the
present Republican policy Of ex-
pansion. AS a matter of TACT the
only resemblance between them is
that in each case more territory
was added. The motives leading
to the accessions, the methods Of
accomplishing them, and the prin-
ciPles accompanying them were all
different. The object Of adding
Florida, Louisiana, the Mexican
territory and Alaska was to avoid
future wars by ridding the Ameri-
can Continent OF monarchial and
European occupants, and thus
avoiding inevitable complication
and wars. 1t is true Mexico was
a Continental power, but England
was about to lay claim to Caliior-
mia, and would have done so il we
had not forestalled her. Mr.. Ell
ferson said that We would have to
get control OF the Mississippi even
if we had to fight tor it, and even
FIVE had to take England as an
ally, but this was to avoid future
and greater complications, But
he said at the same time that when
"we entered into European ALI
ances and broils we would render
the people so much the less happy
and prosperous.
The motives leading to the &C
QUESTION OF Mexican lerritory were
severely condemned at the time
and since. This acquisition ulti-
mately led to the war between the
States, which might otherwise have
been avoided. So that national
and individual crimes have their
punishmen's. The negotiations
for the Alaskan purchase were
commenced under Lincoln, but
were consummated under Johnson,
a Democrat. Il may be added that
IN the cases Of Florida and Louis
lana England had also her irons in
the fire, and was negotiating for
their purchase. Indeed, she had
troops on the border which har-
bored runaway slaves, and encour-
aged the Indians to harry our
troops. We therefore find England
atevery turn attempting to impede
our growth, as she is now trying
to steal some Of our territory in
Alaska, for which we got an un-
disputed title from Russia, and of
which we have held undisputed
possession for over a quarter OF a
century.
But all our Democratic expan-
sion was on American territory,
and over either homogeneous and
willing peoples, or practically un-
inhabited territory. All were ac-
quired by peaceful purchase -ex-
cept the Mexican territory. And
though the war with Mexico had
some pretence OF right, and the
ultimate object was peaceful out
let to the Pacific, yet the moral
sense of the nation was so shocked
at the violation OF our principles
that the party responsible for it
went down to defeat at the ensuing
elections.
Now the Philippines are islands
thousands OF miles away in the
ocean, thickly populated by alien
races. To annex them on equal
terms means to inteJect into the
body polite a disturbing, indi-
gestible, and ultimately fatal ingTe
dent. To hold them on unequal
terms means the destruction OF
those principles which are the life
Of the Republic, and which would
destroy, and indeed for the present
has destroyed, its republican
character. And all for wnat7 For
the so lately vaunted but hereto
fore despised "trade of the Orient"
There never has been, is not now,
except such is the result OF our own
troops being there, and never will
be any appreciable trade with the
Orient. Besides such trade would
exist anyway, and more, for war is
the death of trade. Killing and
impcverishing peoples and gain
ing their enmity surely will not in
crease trade. AS for the Chinese
trade, who ever caters to Chinese
trade in this country, where the
Chinese are comparatively richS
How absurd then to expect trade
with them thousands Of miles away
where wages are only 10 cents a
day. SO that to incorporate the
Filipinos would mean selling our
birthright for "a mess Of pottage,
and very poor pottage at that.
The principle on which all ac-
quisitions were heretofore made