Willmar tribune., 1900-10-20
The PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA
CONQUEST Of THE PHILIPPINES,

Republican orators. never tire to
tell us that Jefferson purchased Louis
lana. Now, they reason, Mckinley
has the same right to purchase and
conquer the Philippines. ..
To this we say, amen. If we are to
have anything to do with the Philip
pines, let us do with: them precisely
what we did with Louisiana and the
Mexican cession. -
What did we do with every piece of
land we ever gained until the year OF
grace 1898? !.
In every single instance we granted
them self-government Immediately. In
every single instance we extended to-
them the rights, privileges and guar
antees of the constitution at once.
That is to say, until 1898 the term
I United States was coeXtensive with
the territory controlled by the United
States. ~.
), AS soon as settled sufficiently, the
Louisiana territory was organized
into states, and these states were ad-
mitted into the: Union on equal terms
with the original thirteen.
President Mckinley has not given
and has not recommended congress to
give Porto Rico and the Philippines
! the self-government' that we always
before have granted our territories.
| There is not the least intention in the
republican party ever to. give state
hood to Porto Rico or the Philip
pines. r ., "a
| Hence the, republicans lie and know
that they lie when they try to make
the criminal aggression and despot-
ism on the Philippines a parallel case
with the peaceful purchase of Louisi-
ana and the liberal establishment of
self-government there.
For this is the sum Of the whole
matter: We extended the constitution
over Louisiana and granted practical
self-government at once; and statehood
as soon as sufficiently settled. Nothing
of this will the republican imperialists
grant to ''our new possessions.
This is sufficient to Stamp this argu-
ment as very coarse campaign lie.
But there are other very essential
differences between the. purchase of
Louisiana and the piratical descent
upon the Spanish East Indies.
: In Louisiana we had the tacit con-
sent of the inhabitants. There was no
| opposition of armed men to the Ameri-
can occupation. There we had at
least the. tacit consent of those govern
ed. Can we say the same of the
Philippines? -.
r. Neither Spain nor France, who had
Possessed the regions before, had ever
had revolution there. Hence there
was no innocent blood on the title
deed we got from France But Spain
had forfeited every moral right to the
Philippines. She had treated them as
she treated Cuba: Hence if we were
right in declaring that Spain had no
right to Cuba we were wrong in &C
,cepting her deed on the Philippines:
She could not possibly sell us what
she had so justly forfeited.
But. we can not expect Senator Davis
who was one of the country gawks
whom Spain fooled with the gold brick
confidence game to purchase the wrong.
side of a rebellion for $1,000, 900; we
can: not expect him TO be very en-
thusiastic in exposing how badly he
was sold. ''-3'% : .%i,,., .~- <...... Co.,: .>
Jefferson favored the annexation of
necessary territory on the North
American continent, but he was OPP
posed to wars Of conquest and ex-;
;pressly condemned the acquiring of
!, remote territory J: Bran inter
~