New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-06-05
WHAT CONQUEST MEANS.

Talk about conquest has for some time been
rife, especially about the American conquest or
the Philippines and the British conquest of the
Dutch States of South Africa. The word has
been uttered In ave. or in assumed awe, as
though conquest were essentially and inevitably
a fearSome and abhOrrent thing. Perhaps 1t
would be differently regarded If the real signiii-
canoe of it in Its present application were kept
in mind instead of the ghastly associations of
its ancient purport. The old "Conquistadores,"
or conquest-makers, were not. we must con-
cede, particularly admirable beings Neither
were such typical conquest makers as Atula
and Genghis and Timur. But then it's not nee
essary that every cOnQuerOr should be of their
stripe and every conquest such as they achieved
any more than it is necessary for every EN-
peror to be a Nero, every King John Lack
land, or every President a Louis Napoleon.
Lord Roberts achieved the conquest of Bloem-
fontein few weeks ago just as much as lilly
did that of Magdeburg. But between the two
conQuests there was great contrast as be-
tween day and night
We cannot, perhaps, greatly blame some OF
the Filipinos for fearing that our conquest"
IL so 1t may be called, of their islands will mean
something like slavery, for that was the mean
ing Of the only conquest they have hitherto
known. The Spanish conquest OF them was
effected with sword and lash, and they have
been told, with ingenious malice, that Ameri-
cans are more cruel than Spaniards. Neither
can we greatly blame some of the Beers for
thinking that British conquest Of their States
will mean cOnfiscatiOn Of all their lands and
property and the pauperizng and disenfran-
chisng, if not the actual enslaving. Of the whole
people, for that is what conquest has hitherto
meant to them. That was what it meant to
their ancestors. who fed to the wilderness from
spoliation and oppression in Europe, and they
themselves are mentally still living IN the
enteenth century. That is what it has meant to
them practised by themselves against the
native tribes, and against white people, too.
Note, for example the wholesale theft and de-
struction of private property and oppression of
non-combatant people which the Beers prac-
tised in Natal at the beginning of this war.
1t is desirable that the meaning Of conquest
should be rightly understood-that as practised
by enlightened modern nations it is effected
against governments, and not against ind-
viduals. There was never a more complete act
Of conquest than that effected by Grant at
Appomattox, and the conqueror told the con-
Quered to keep their horses to do the spring
ploughng on their farms. Lord Roberts is MAX
ing complete conquest of the Boer States, but
every Boer. soldier as well as civlian-unless
he has committed some crime against the COM
mon law-wfll retain intact his title to his land
and house and cattle, and be as secure in his
possession of them and of his civil and political
rights as he has ever been. Our conquest" Of
the Philippines will presently be complete, and
the chief representative there of the conquer
ing power announces that the conquest will
mean Justice to the Filpinos, the best govern
"ment in our power and such a measure of pop
''ular control AS is consistent with the stability
land security of law order and property" If
that be conquest" make the most of it.
We are not arguing in favor of indscrimnate
wars Of conquest. But it is just as well to look
at things as they are, and not they once were,
and to live in the nineteenth century, and not in
the seventeenth. 1t is possible for a nation to
be a conquering nation without being a de-
spofler or an oppressor There is, indeed such
a thing known as the conquest, or the overcom-
Ing, of evil with good. Why not once in a life
time take that into consideration?