当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文

吉安无痛脱体毛康泰时讯吉安去红血丝多少钱

2018年06月21日 01:10:16    日报  参与评论()人

吉安保仕柏丽美容医院割双眼皮手术多少钱吉安中心医院光子脱毛多少钱mp4视频下载 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTON REDUCING SPENDING IN THE BUDGET Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office BuildingRoom 35010:42 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. All across this country, Americans are responding to difficult economic times by tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend and where they need to save. The question the American people are asking is whether Washington is prepared to act with the same sense of responsibility.I believe we can and must do exactly that. Over the course of our first hundred days in office, my administration has taken aggressive action to confront a historic economic crisis. We're doing everything that we can to create jobs and to get our economy moving while building a new foundation for lasting prosperity -- a foundation that invests in quality education, lowers health care costs, and develops new sources of energy powered by new jobs and industries.But one of the pillars of this foundation is fiscal responsibility. We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem. We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation.That's why I've charged the Office of Management and Budget, led by Peter Orszag and Rob Nabors who are standing behind me today, with going through the budget -- program by program, item by item, line by line -- looking for areas where we can save taxpayer dollars.Today, the budget office is releasing the first report in this process: a list of more than 100 programs slated to be reduced or eliminated altogether. And the process is ongoing.I want to be clear: There are many, many people doing valuable work for our government across the country and around the world. And it's important that we support these folks -- people who don't draw a big paycheck or earn a lot of praise but who do tough, thankless jobs on our behalf in our government. So this is not a criticism of them.At the same time, we have to admit that there is a lot of money that's being spent inefficiently, ineffectively, and, in some cases, in ways that are actually pretty stunning.Some programs may have made sense in the past -- but are no longer needed in the present. Other programs never made any sense; the end result of a special interest's successful lobbying campaign. Still other programs perform functions that can be conducted more efficiently, or are aly carried out more effectively elsewhere in the government.One example of a program we will cut is a long-range radio navigation system which costs taxpayers million a year. This system once made a lot of sense, before there were satellites to help us navigate. Now there's GPS. And yet, year after year, this obsolete technology has continued to be funded even though it serves no government function and very few people are left who still actually use it.Another example is the National Institute for Literacy. Now, I strongly support initiatives that promote literacy -- it's critical -- but I oppose programs that do it badly. Last year, nearly half of the funding in this program was spent on overhead. So we've proposed cutting the million for this program in favor of supporting literacy efforts within the Department of Education which use tax dollars more effectively and wisely.We're also closing an office maintained by the Department of Education in Paris. This is an office that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to employ one person as a representative to ed Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO. Now, participation in UNESCO is very important, but we can save this money and still participate using e-mail and teleconferencing and a small travel budget.In addition, we're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One example is a 5 million program to build an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department is aly pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use the alternative version. That's why the Pentagon stopped requesting this funding two years ago. Yet it's still being funded.05/69100遂川县妙桃隆胸假体多少钱 Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.This much we pledge and more.To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. ed, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required, not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge -- to convert our good words into good deeds in a new alliance for progress -- to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.To that world assembly of sovereign states, the ed Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective -- to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request -- that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady sp of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankinds final war.So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah -- to ;undo the heavy burdens...and let the oppressed go free.;And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, ;rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation; -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth Gods work must truly be our own. /201205/182043井冈山大学临床医学院激光祛痣多少钱

吉安长鼻手术费用21世纪杯全国英语演讲比赛 第三名 美国经典英文演讲100篇总统演讲布莱尔首相演讲美国总统布什演讲快报 200808/46378吉安祛痘 William Jennings BryanImperialismdelivered 8 August 1900, Indianapolis, INAudio mp3 Excerpt Studio Reading of AddressMr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an earlyAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 2 of 16day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, andshall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democraticplatform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations atPharmacethis time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon theConferencquestion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.Leading SForumWhen I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between PharmaceDemocracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to sayBiotech Exthat all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that onthe important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by thoseinfluences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for theprotection of the rights of man.The War WGet The LaIn 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the News On Tdollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is Ongoing Wthe proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of A ReliableGod, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions todayRepublican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, ;equal rights to all and special privileges to none,;andHistory Nowthe doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government ;of the people, by theA new onlipeople and for the people,;are being disregarded and the instrumentalities ofjournal forgovernment are being used to advance the interests of those who are in aamp; studentsposition to secure favors from the Government.AmericanThe Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; ithas no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, itgives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when itpromises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property Globalrights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy Governmestrives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to Eventshis merits. Senior leveconferenceNo one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for Governmethe services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair Technologycompensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doinginjustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in theabsence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another theDemocratic party says ;Thou shalt not.;Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financiallypowerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them areassociated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name,are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of theirown party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselvesthat the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to thegreenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of thenations paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican partywas paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support aperpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust nowbeguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts,while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and moreobscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon thesmall expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objectionswhich are urged against a large increase in the permanent militaryestablishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nationwas less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans whoAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 3 of 16three years ago condemned ;forcible annexation; as immoral and even criminalare now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation.That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; howlarge a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policiesremains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right tocriticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation theyfound that both Lincoln and Clay asseWilliam Jennings BryanImperialismdelivered 8 August 1900, Indianapolis, INAudio mp3 Excerpt Studio Reading of AddressMr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an earlyAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 2 of 16day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, andshall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democraticplatform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations atPharmacethis time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon theConferencquestion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.Leading SForumWhen I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between PharmaceDemocracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to sayBiotech Exthat all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a www.gtcbio.cpredominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that onthe important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by thoseinfluences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for theprotection of the rights of man.The War WGet The LaIn 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the News On Tdollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is Ongoing Wthe proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of A ReliableGod, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is www.NewYorthe master, money the servant, but upon all important questions todayRepublican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, ;equal rights to all and special privileges to none,;andHistory Nowthe doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government ;of the people, by theA new onlipeople and for the people,;are being disregarded and the instrumentalities ofjournal forgovernment are being used to advance the interests of those who are in aamp; studentsposition to secure favors from the Government.Americanwww.historynThe Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; ithas no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, itgives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when itpromises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property Globalrights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy Governmestrives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to Eventshis merits. Senior leveconferenceNo one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for Governmethe services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair Technologycompensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it www.terrapinis at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doinginjustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in theabsence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another theDemocratic party says ;Thou shalt not.;Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financiallypowerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them areassociated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name,are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of theirown party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselvesthat the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to thegreenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of thenations paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican partywas paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support aperpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust nowbeguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts,while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and moreobscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon thesmall expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objectionswhich are urged against a large increase in the permanent militaryestablishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nationwas less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans whoAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 3 of 16three years ago condemned ;forcible annexation; as immoral and even criminalare now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation.That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; howlarge a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policiesremains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right tocriticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation theyfound that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize aPresident during the progress of the Mexican war.Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan fordealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted aplatform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion ofthose which involve the very structure of our government, the Republicanleaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of theirparty and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issuewhich they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When thepresident, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate,entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots ofCuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain apolitical advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of thecase must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in thesupport which they gave to the president. When the war was over and theRepublican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy oppositionat once manifested itself.When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized theindependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands tothe ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that manypreferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take thechance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of thiscountry.I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty andend the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expendituresand then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spainby a new treaty.In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take thisoccasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust theAmerican people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust theaccomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, ;Can aliensmake treaties easier than friends can make laws?; I believe that we are now in abetter position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we wouldhave been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issueis presented between a government by consent and a government by force, andimperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question issettled.If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have beenheld responsible for any international complications which might have arisenbefore the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion mayAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 4 of 16have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there neverwas any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is nodifference now as to the course to be pursued.The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinosaccording to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a monthbefore hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos onthe same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolutionand believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would haveprevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would haveended hostilities.If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsedbefore a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during thattime the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Baconresolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president,either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, itwould have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the Americanpeople free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeatedby the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this arepublican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editorsat once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification ofthe treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans haveaccused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos.This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently andimitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican partyought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races toprotest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Ourwhole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all whoare denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared tocensure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hateforeign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When heuttered that passionate appeal, ;Give me liberty or give me death,; he expresseda sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have usedwords so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Letthem censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choosebetween liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sinsof Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whoseGettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when thepresent advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes onand on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it werepossible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principlesset forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leaveits legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every humanheart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale ofcivilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider,not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate itseffects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 5 of 16Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or itsforts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spiritwithout planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism.Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those whowere fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to theWestern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. Wehave felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who werestruggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which ourpeople have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contestbetween human rights and arbitrary power.Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles ofGreece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression tothe universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested alively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress inSouth Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in thetriumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say aword in behalf of the Boers.Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England;the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. Thissympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in theprinciples of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims ofmonarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of theprinciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestigeand influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of populargovernment.Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuseimperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as asupporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with suchprecision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:;If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of everyAmerican, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.; And again hesaid: ;Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.;The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs asmuch from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchydiffers from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansionwhen expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land whichcan be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who arewilling to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts whichhave been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitutionfollowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distantterritory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force uponthe people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or ourlaws.Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it andwho have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify theappropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands wereuninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil.The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried tocolonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for threehundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people ofEuropean birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 6 of 16After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentiethof one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an armyof seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain hadasserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleetentered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in thePhilippines.A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a fewtraders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough tosupport the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its naturaland necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation ofthe Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the dominationof other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid,growth of our military establishment.That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republicanleaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message ofDecember 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standingarmy to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years thepresident asked for four times that many, and a Republican house ofrepresentatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had beensigned, and when no country was at war with the ed States.If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but notopenly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republicanparty by indorsing its policy at the polls?A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, ifaccompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is evera menace to a Republican form of government.The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change theideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts ofpeace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense uponits citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body ofprofessional soldiers.A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia aresufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the futureas in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from alloccupations at their countrys call and return to productive labor when theirservices are no longer required --men who fight when the country needs fightersand work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumesthat the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and wehave a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future statusof the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the bodypolitic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history thatamalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws andshaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been boldenough to advocate such a proposition.The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratificationof the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describesthe situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens withoutendangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? Ifthe Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that questionthe Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipinocannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic canhave no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force;he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation withoutAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 7 of 16representation.The Republican platform says that ;the largest measure of self-governmentconsistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (theFilipinos) by law.; This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes itsvery existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest againstgovernment without consent and taxation without representation. In what respectdoes the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by theEnglish Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a goodgovernment to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to hispeople? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should havethe largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Englishduties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans thelargest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanishduties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may besummed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what hebelieves to be a good government; in a republic the people secure forthemselves what they believe to be a good government.The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself uponthe ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity ofthe people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is tobe given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteenmonths elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment ofcongress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippinesituation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islandswherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican partyhesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclosethe radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those whocontrol the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the PuertoRican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American peopleare brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied theguarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resistedour authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain dutytoward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those sameinfluences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this countrywhere the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the sideof the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the lastfew years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporationswhich are waiting to exploit the islands?Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States,and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, whilethe thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The PuertoRico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution isconfined to the forty-five states.The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant toboth the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system ofgovernment for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leadersof a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treatmillions of people as mere ;possessions; and deal with them unrestrained by theconstitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from theancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatelyenters upon a career of empire.The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chiefsecurity a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the sameAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 8 of 16constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizenof a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interestssacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil ofthe colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or byconquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people?If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Willthe Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth ismolded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator itbecomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their justpowers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title topeople, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spains title bytreaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with ourideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them tofight against Spain, we disputed Spains title. If we buy Spains title we are notinnocent purchasers.There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of theFilipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fightingfor their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example ofturpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of animperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. Butduty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in anyemergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It isour duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great orlittle value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where thehuman being lives or to what race or class he belongs.Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe boththe human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws tonations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson,than whom there is no higher political authority, said:;I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.;Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacybequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea ineven stronger language when he said:;Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. Ahighwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.;Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals,but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those whojoin it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it wastrue, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans ;are and ofright ought to be free and independent; (language taken from the Declaration ofIndependence), it is equally true that the Filipinos ;are and of right ought to befree and independent.;The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to theed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race orraces to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous votedeclared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still aliveand applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights ofthe Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to libertyand that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if theCoffeehousAds by GAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 9 of 16Filipinos ;are and of right ought to be free and independent,; what right have weto force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty canbe ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are oncedetermined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty ofSpain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England torespect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties neverclash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can itbe our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love libertywell enough to fight for it?A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of thebattle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written ;All ye are brethren.;Let us hope for the coming day when human life --which when once destroyedcannot be restored --will be so sacred that it will never be taken except whennecessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about tobe committed.It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make itnecessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands.I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. Noobligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can requirethe abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrinesagainst which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that ourobligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligationwhich we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in thePhilippines or desire to trade there.It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that,therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in anofficial report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable ofself-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon aknowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relativeadvancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people ofSouth America to self-government said:;It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Theirpartisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannotcommand universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particularnations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. Icontend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose thathe has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled onby kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.;Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government,but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people thecapacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right toseize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force --brute force --theonly foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing tobelieve that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then leftthem thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention ofEuropean nations.Republicans ask, ;Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in thePhilippines?; The same question might have been asked, when the Americanflag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but thetourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by theed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over ourdead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrewto the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years thepeople of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independenceand self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 10 of 16government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendlyrepublics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had theformer been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as;benevolent assimilation.;;Can we not govern colonies?;we are asked. The question is not what we cando, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but itmust accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way,the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever itdesires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it ownconduct.The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He candisregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has beentaught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws ofsociety and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make hisvery existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and motherin sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, ;The wages of sin isdeath.;And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn thetraditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests;it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it canconquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property andkill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishmentdecreed for the violation of human rights.;Would we t in the paths of tyranny,Nor reckon the tyrants cost?Who taketh anothers libertyHis freedom is also lost.Would we win as the strong have ever won,Make y to pay the debt,American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 11 of 16For the God who reigned over BabylonIs the God who is reigning yet.;Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the bettereducation of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonialpolicy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educatedFilipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made theleast resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay,we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration ofIndependence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for ourinconsistency.The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon adefense of imperialism are:First-That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world powerand enter into international politics.Second-That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orientmake it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.Third-That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonialpolicy.Fourth-That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation hastaken.The first argument is addrest to the nationrsquo;s pride and the second to the nationrsquo;spocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for thepartisan.It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century thisnation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potentinfluence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done moreto shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the worldcombined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated othershave been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty otherhave fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutionshave been adopted.The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, hasbeen the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made thisnation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as noother nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onwardmarch of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside theomnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. Iwould not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires thathave risen and fallen since time began.The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presentedthe pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:;We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solelyon account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacredtrust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty toourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By everylegitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean tostimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.;American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 12 of 16This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can berightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase tradeby force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When LordHowe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution werenecessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels,Franklin replied:;To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoevervaluable, is an object for which men may justly spill each others blood; that thetrue and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness andcheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal tothe expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider thiswar against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.;I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who wouldput a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquestupon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansionof trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but itis not willing to make merchandise of human blood.But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coalingstation in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity andsuch a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on tradetoday with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded morerapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan orChina, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics ofCentral and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary tohave any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order totrade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must betaken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover theexpense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that theexpense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable tothe ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring deadsoldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon thefranchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would befixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to thevast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditurewithout return and risk without reward.Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systemswhich place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of theexpenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit fromimperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboringman will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States;the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor inthe Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from theviolence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methodsof imperialism are applied to our own government.It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to notethe approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism andimperialism.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 13 of 16The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely tobe used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religiousargument. If what has been termed the ;gunpowder gospel;were urged againstthe Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of theFilipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but theprinciple involved is one of much wider application and challenges seriousconsideration.The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief thatProvidence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, tothe exultation of the minister who said that we ought to ;thrash the natives(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,;and that ;every bullet sent, everycannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.;We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply iteverywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach theheat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the Americanflag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon Americansoil.If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings ofChrist, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite andproselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove hisauthority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, ;Go ye into all theworld and preach the gospel to every creature,;has no Gatling gun attachment.When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him,some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven toavenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: ;Ye know not whatmanner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy menrsquo;s lives,but to save them.;Suppose he had said: ;We will thrash them until theyunderstand who we are,;how different would have been the history ofChristianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine ofimperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ;Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself.;Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not theexploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionaryrecently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because hisassailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty;let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies,they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truthand their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing thebreastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be knownthat they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of othernations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcomegiven to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to themissionaries of any other nation.The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it hadanything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manilamade the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make itimperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shedat San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubansindependence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does notcompel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 14 of 16floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down whenthe flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousandtimes that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of anempire.There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is setforth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to theAmerican people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will conveneCongress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend animmediate declaration of the nationrsquo;s purpose, first, to establish a stable form ofgovernment in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stableform of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos aswe have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect theFilipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as wehave protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by theMonroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by theguardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantageof our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of acentury the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet ithas imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us inthe war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitiousdesigns of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part ofus or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to givethem independence and guard them against molestation from without.When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fallback upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, nomatter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles ofgovernment. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinctionbetween right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victimsof circumstance.Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to opposeerror, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that thedestiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked onthe experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washingtonrsquo;sdefinition of destiny from the Republican definition!The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washingtonbelieved that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of therepublican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to Americanhands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the handsof its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope ofhumanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influenceshould be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for thisnation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea ofthe nationrsquo;s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself tocontribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge thedebt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they haveso generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy thehigh office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder ofmy days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controllingpurpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courageand sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and thepast --a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to theAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 15 of 16possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundationstones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth --arepublic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evidentpropositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed withinalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure theserights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all toearnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for aneighbors injury --a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in whichno one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires allaround are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments --a republic Art amp; Sciewhose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic Coachingincreasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the Coachingproblems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- ICF Accreda republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example World Classand gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic Training-Tgradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the worlds progress rted and exercised the right to criticize aPresident during the progress of the Mexican war.Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan fordealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted aplatform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion ofthose which involve the very structure of our government, the Republicanleaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of theirparty and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issuewhich they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When thepresident, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate,entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots ofCuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain apolitical advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of thecase must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in thesupport which they gave to the president. When the war was over and theRepublican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy oppositionat once manifested itself.When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized theindependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands tothe ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that manypreferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take thechance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of thiscountry.I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty andend the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expendituresand then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spainby a new treaty.In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take thisoccasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust theAmerican people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust theaccomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, ;Can aliensmake treaties easier than friends can make laws?; I believe that we are now in abetter position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we wouldhave been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issueis presented between a government by consent and a government by force, andimperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question issettled.If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have beenheld responsible for any international complications which might have arisenbefore the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion mayAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 4 of 16have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there neverwas any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is nodifference now as to the course to be pursued.The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinosaccording to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a monthbefore hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos onthe same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolutionand believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would haveprevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would haveended hostilities.If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsedbefore a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during thattime the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Baconresolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president,either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, itwould have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the Americanpeople free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeatedby the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this arepublican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editorsat once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification ofthe treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans haveaccused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos.This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently andimitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican partyought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races toprotest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Ourwhole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all whoare denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared tocensure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hateforeign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When heuttered that passionate appeal, ;Give me liberty or give me death,; he expresseda sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have usedwords so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Letthem censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choosebetween liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sinsof Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whoseGettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when thepresent advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes onand on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it werepossible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principlesset forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leaveits legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every humanheart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale ofcivilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider,not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate itseffects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 5 of 16Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or itsforts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spiritwithout planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism.Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those whowere fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to theWestern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. Wehave felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who werestruggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which ourpeople have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contestbetween human rights and arbitrary power.Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles ofGreece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression tothe universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested alively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress inSouth Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in thetriumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say aword in behalf of the Boers.Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England;the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. Thissympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in theprinciples of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims ofmonarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of theprinciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestigeand influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of populargovernment.Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuseimperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as asupporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with suchprecision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:;If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of everyAmerican, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.; And again hesaid: ;Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.;The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs asmuch from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchydiffers from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansionwhen expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land whichcan be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who arewilling to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts whichhave been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitutionfollowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distantterritory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force uponthe people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or ourlaws.Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it andwho have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify theappropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands wereuninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil.The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried tocolonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for threehundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people ofEuropean birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 6 of 16After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentiethof one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an armyof seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain hadasserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleetentered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in thePhilippines.A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a fewtraders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough tosupport the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its naturaland necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation ofthe Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the dominationof other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid,growth of our military establishment.That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republicanleaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message ofDecember 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standingarmy to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years thepresident asked for four times that many, and a Republican house ofrepresentatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had beensigned, and when no country was at war with the ed States.If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but notopenly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republicanparty by indorsing its policy at the polls?A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, ifaccompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is evera menace to a Republican form of government.The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change theideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts ofpeace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense uponits citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body ofprofessional soldiers.A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia aresufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the futureas in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from alloccupations at their countrys call and return to productive labor when theirservices are no longer required --men who fight when the country needs fightersand work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumesthat the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and wehave a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future statusof the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the bodypolitic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history thatamalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws andshaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been boldenough to advocate such a proposition.The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratificationof the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describesthe situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens withoutendangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? Ifthe Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that questionthe Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipinocannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic canhave no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force;he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation withoutAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 7 of 16representation.The Republican platform says that ;the largest measure of self-governmentconsistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (theFilipinos) by law.; This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes itsvery existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest againstgovernment without consent and taxation without representation. In what respectdoes the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by theEnglish Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a goodgovernment to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to hispeople? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should havethe largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Englishduties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans thelargest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanishduties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may besummed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what hebelieves to be a good government; in a republic the people secure forthemselves what they believe to be a good government.The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself uponthe ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity ofthe people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is tobe given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteenmonths elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment ofcongress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippinesituation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islandswherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican partyhesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclosethe radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those whocontrol the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the PuertoRican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American peopleare brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied theguarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resistedour authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain dutytoward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those sameinfluences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this countrywhere the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the sideof the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the lastfew years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporationswhich are waiting to exploit the islands?Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States,and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, whilethe thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The PuertoRico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution isconfined to the forty-five states.The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant toboth the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system ofgovernment for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leadersof a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treatmillions of people as mere ;possessions; and deal with them unrestrained by theconstitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from theancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatelyenters upon a career of empire.The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chiefsecurity a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the sameAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 8 of 16constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizenof a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interestssacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil ofthe colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or byconquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people?If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Willthe Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth ismolded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator itbecomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their justpowers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title topeople, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spains title bytreaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with ourideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them tofight against Spain, we disputed Spains title. If we buy Spains title we are notinnocent purchasers.There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of theFilipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fightingfor their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example ofturpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of animperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. Butduty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in anyemergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It isour duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great orlittle value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where thehuman being lives or to what race or class he belongs.Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe boththe human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws tonations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson,than whom there is no higher political authority, said:;I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.;Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacybequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea ineven stronger language when he said:;Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. Ahighwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.;Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals,but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those whojoin it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it wastrue, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans ;are and ofright ought to be free and independent; (language taken from the Declaration ofIndependence), it is equally true that the Filipinos ;are and of right ought to befree and independent.;The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to theed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race orraces to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous votedeclared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still aliveand applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights ofthe Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to libertyand that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if theCoffeehousAds by GAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 9 of 16Filipinos ;are and of right ought to be free and independent,; what right have weto force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty canbe ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are oncedetermined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty ofSpain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England torespect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties neverclash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can itbe our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love libertywell enough to fight for it?A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of thebattle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written ;All ye are brethren.;Let us hope for the coming day when human life --which when once destroyedcannot be restored --will be so sacred that it will never be taken except whennecessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about tobe committed.It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make itnecessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands.I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. Noobligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can requirethe abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrinesagainst which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that ourobligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligationwhich we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in thePhilippines or desire to trade there.It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that,therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in anofficial report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable ofself-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon aknowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relativeadvancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people ofSouth America to self-government said:;It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Theirpartisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannotcommand universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particularnations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. Icontend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose thathe has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled onby kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.;Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government,but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people thecapacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right toseize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force --brute force --theonly foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing tobelieve that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then leftthem thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention ofEuropean nations.Republicans ask, ;Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in thePhilippines?; The same question might have been asked, when the Americanflag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but thetourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by theed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over ourdead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrewto the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years thepeople of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independenceand self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 10 of 16government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendlyrepublics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had theformer been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as;benevolent assimilation.;;Can we not govern colonies?;we are asked. The question is not what we cando, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but itmust accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way,the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever itdesires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it ownconduct.The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He candisregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has beentaught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws ofsociety and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make hisvery existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and motherin sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, ;The wages of sin isdeath.;And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn thetraditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests;it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it canconquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property andkill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishmentdecreed for the violation of human rights.;Would we t in the paths of tyranny,Nor reckon the tyrants cost?Who taketh anothers libertyHis freedom is also lost.Would we win as the strong have ever won,Make y to pay the debt,American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 11 of 16For the God who reigned over BabylonIs the God who is reigning yet.;Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the bettereducation of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonialpolicy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educatedFilipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made theleast resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay,we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration ofIndependence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for ourinconsistency.The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon adefense of imperialism are:First-That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world powerand enter into international politics.Second-That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orientmake it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.Third-That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonialpolicy.Fourth-That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation hastaken.The first argument is addrest to the nationrsquo;s pride and the second to the nationrsquo;spocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for thepartisan.It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century thisnation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potentinfluence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done moreto shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the worldcombined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated othershave been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty otherhave fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutionshave been adopted.The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, hasbeen the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made thisnation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as noother nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onwardmarch of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside theomnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. Iwould not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires thathave risen and fallen since time began.The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presentedthe pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:;We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solelyon account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacredtrust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty toourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By everylegitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean tostimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.;American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 12 of 16This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can berightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase tradeby force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When LordHowe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution werenecessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels,Franklin replied:;To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoevervaluable, is an object for which men may justly spill each others blood; that thetrue and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness andcheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal tothe expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider thiswar against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.;I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who wouldput a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquestupon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansionof trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but itis not willing to make merchandise of human blood.But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coalingstation in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity andsuch a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on tradetoday with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded morerapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan orChina, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics ofCentral and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary tohave any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order totrade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must betaken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover theexpense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that theexpense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable tothe ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring deadsoldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon thefranchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would befixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to thevast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditurewithout return and risk without reward.Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systemswhich place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of theexpenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit fromimperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboringman will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States;the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor inthe Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from theviolence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methodsof imperialism are applied to our own government.It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to notethe approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism andimperialism.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 13 of 16The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely tobe used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religiousargument. If what has been termed the ;gunpowder gospel;were urged againstthe Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of theFilipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but theprinciple involved is one of much wider application and challenges seriousconsideration.The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief thatProvidence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, tothe exultation of the minister who said that we ought to ;thrash the natives(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,;and that ;every bullet sent, everycannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.;We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply iteverywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach theheat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the Americanflag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon Americansoil.If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings ofChrist, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite andproselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove hisauthority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, ;Go ye into all theworld and preach the gospel to every creature,;has no Gatling gun attachment.When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him,some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven toavenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: ;Ye know not whatmanner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy menrsquo;s lives,but to save them.;Suppose he had said: ;We will thrash them until theyunderstand who we are,;how different would have been the history ofChristianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine ofimperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ;Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself.;Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not theexploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionaryrecently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because hisassailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty;let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies,they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truthand their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing thebreastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be knownthat they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of othernations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcomegiven to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to themissionaries of any other nation.The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it hadanything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manilamade the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make itimperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shedat San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubansindependence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does notcompel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 14 of 16floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down whenthe flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousandtimes that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of anempire.There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is setforth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to theAmerican people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will conveneCongress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend animmediate declaration of the nationrsquo;s purpose, first, to establish a stable form ofgovernment in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stableform of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos aswe have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect theFilipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as wehave protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by theMonroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by theguardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantageof our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of acentury the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet ithas imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us inthe war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitiousdesigns of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part ofus or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to givethem independence and guard them against molestation from without.When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fallback upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, nomatter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles ofgovernment. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinctionbetween right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victimsof circumstance.Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to opposeerror, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that thedestiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked onthe experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washingtonrsquo;sdefinition of destiny from the Republican definition!The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washingtonbelieved that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of therepublican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to Americanhands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the handsof its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope ofhumanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influenceshould be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for thisnation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea ofthe nationrsquo;s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself tocontribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge thedebt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they haveso generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy thehigh office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder ofmy days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controllingpurpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courageand sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and thepast --a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to theAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 15 of 16possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundationstones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth --arepublic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evidentpropositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed withinalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure theserights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all toearnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for aneighbors injury --a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in whichno one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires allaround are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments --a republic Art amp; Sciewhose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic Coachingincreasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the Coachingproblems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- ICF Accreda republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example World Classand gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic Training-Tgradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the worlds progress /201205/182152吉水县治疗痤疮多少钱

吉安保仕柏丽医院整形美容科Prosperity, Peace and Opportunity: The Legacy of American Service in South KoreaIn a particularly moving address to troops at Osan Air Base in Osan, South Korea, the President thanked American troops for their continued sacrifice and service, and took the opportunity to a share a short anecdote with the crowd. The story reminded troops of America's great responsibility and privilege to protect freedom and promote democracy around the world, and offered rare historical insight from a longtime ally:I want to deliver, actually, just a quick story, go a little off script. President Lee talked to me about what it was like when he was a young child here in Korea, this country having been torn by war, and the poverty that still existed in the country. And he said, I hope the American people understand how grateful we are for what you've done, because we would not be the extraordinarily strong, prosperous nation that we are, had it not been for the sacrifices of your armed services and the continued contributions that you've made.And I thought, when the President of a country that's become so successful says that America, and America's armed services in particular, had something to do with the extraordinary success of their country -- he said, that's something you should take great pride in. And I want all of you to know that, because you are carrying that tradition on right here at Osan.I couldn't come to the Republic of Korea without coming to see you to deliver a simple message -- a message of thanks to you and your families. Because of all the privileges of serving as President, I have no greater honor than serving as Commander-in-Chief of the finest military that the world has ever known. (Applause.) 11/89954 Good evening, my fellow Americans.First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.Three days from now, after a half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that Americas leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.Throughout Americas adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or iness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, y for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.Until the latest of our world conflicts, the ed States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all ed States corporations.Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system ? ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into societys future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations great goals.To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to Americas prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.Thank you, and good night. /201205/182110吉安哪里去痣吉安中心医院祛痣多少钱

吉安哪家医院做双眼皮手术好
新干县做激光去毛多少钱
吉安市垫鼻子多少钱中华分享
峡江县激光治疗鸡眼多少钱
康泰资讯井冈山市打botox要多少钱
吉安市割双眼皮多少钱
吉安注射瘦脸针
吉安市第一人民医院切眼袋手术多少钱88问答吉安保仕柏丽整形美容医院去色素斑怎么样
安心优惠吉安妇幼保健医院隆胸多少钱周中文
(责任编辑:图王)
 
五大发展理念

文化·娱乐

龙江会客厅

峡江县妇幼保健人民医院打瘦腿针多少钱
吉安手术祛痣 吉安市立医院激光去痣多少钱乐视指南 [详细]
吉安市第三人民医院绣眉手术多少钱
泰和县光子美白多少钱 吉安市中医医院激光去胎记多少钱 [详细]
吉安纹眉毛多少钱
吉安祛除胎记要多少钱 百姓解答万安县除皱的费用新华新闻 [详细]
吉安市光子脱毛多少钱
预约健康吉安人民医院激光点痣多少钱 吉安光子脱毛健在线吉安打水光针 [详细]