Carus, Paul

OpenSIUC

NO PROTECTORATE BUT AN ALLIANCE.BY THE EDITOR.NAMES are not as indifferent as they would seem. Romeo'sargument, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet !"does not agree with facts. Names have associations in the mindsof the people, and there are words, like "liberty," which, bare ofmeaning though they may be in some cases, possess neverthelessan electrifying power. The significance of names must also beconsidered in dealing with the populations of Cuba, Porto Rico,and the Philippines, which have recently fallen into our possessionby right of conquest.It is true that the control of these islands is a matter of greatimportance to the United States, and to leave the possession oftheir main harbor defences to chance would be a criminal neglect ofproper foresight. Should Cuba, Porto Rico, and Luzon forthwithbecome independent states, their main harbors might be suddenlyseized by some powerful nation either on a flimsy pretext, or evenfor actual cause, while to recover them would cost thousands oflives, hundreds of millions of dollars and might become in the pro-gress of time an imperative duty. Should the harbors of Cienfuegosand Havana fall into the hands of a European power, there wouldbe practically an end to the American control of any Isthmiancanal; and in case we should be involved in a naval war of anykind, we should deeply regret having surrendered Cavite and theharbor defences of Manila.Thus the desirability of holding these points cannot be denied.But here the question comes in. Shall we for the sake of holdingthem reduce the entire islands to submission and establish a stateof sovereignty over the populations? Here lies the difficulty ofthe situation. We can easily grant the inhabitants perfect libertywith unrestricted home rule, and it is the avowed purpose of ourgovernment to do so. But in doing so we ought to be careful to154 THE OPEN COURT.avoid names that are or may become odious to the people. It willbe necessary to protect these islands against foreign aggression,not so much for their sake as for our own, lest they become a preyto some powerful rival. But the word protectorate suggests theidea of vassalage and other feudal institutions. How much easierwould it be to keep a foothold in these islands by gaining theirgood-will and preserving their friendship? Let our connexion withthem, which is as desirable to them as it is to us, be in the form ofa friendly alliance, and barring difference of size and power let itbe stated in terms of equality. We should accordingly replace thewords "protectorate," "sovereignty," etc., by the term "alliance"and call these islands oflficially "allied republics." We shouldthus gain the sympathy of the populations, and in critical timesthe sympathy of the inhabitants may be worth more than the gunsof our soldiers.Let us grant to the populations of our new possessions homerule and liberty on the condition that our alliance be indissolubleand let the management of the harbor defences be removed asmuch as possible from political influence, both in the United Statesand in the Islands. Let the territory be regarded as neutral ground,belonging to the allied nations, the control of which can be strictlyregulated according to the interests and safety of both parties, andfor the sake of serving the ends of their alliance ; but let the ar-rangements be made in terms of an alliance.All the complications that arise from the difficulty of theislands being subject to the United States and yet not part of themare thus avoided. It would be impossible for us to transformthe inhabitants at once into citizens of the United States just as itwould be unfair to make Christians of the Mohammedans in theSulu Islands. But our responsibility for their institutions ceaseswhen we treat them as allies, not as subjects, and recognise theirright of regulating their home affairs according to their own notions—which of course does not exclude the advisability of exercising amoral influence and of persuading them to introduce reform and tochange those customs of theirs which are evidently marks of aninferior civilisation.The character of the relation between the United States andthe allied republics could be such that citizens of our country mightacquire, by change of residence, the right of citizenship in theIslands, and vice versa the inhabitants of the Islands might be-come, as soon as they lived in the United States, citizens of theNO PROTF.CTORATE RUT AN ALLIANCE. 1 55United States, and neither the former nor the latter should for thatreason lose the citizenship of their original homes.All these details may fairly be left to a consideration of thepractical demands made by the contracting parties. Manila, beinga conglomerate of diverse nationalities, should be divided into anumber of independent states of which the United States govern-ment might be one, owing the territory of Cavite and other pointsof strategical importance. These states might enjoy perfect homerule and be as sovereign as are the states of our own Union, butshould be united into a confederacy for the sake of harmonisingtheir particular interests, of regulating their interstate relations andof attending to the administration of the whole. By not claimingthe right of sovereignty and by avoiding all terms that savor of sub-jection and vassalage, we shall truly become more powerful in theIslands, for we shall gain their good-will, and instead of holdingin possession so many million slaves we shall receive that manyfriends. Quot servi tot hostes; quot socii, tot amici.

No Protectorate, but an Alliance.

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=ocj

No Protectorate, but an Alliance.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC