"THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN" - The US and the Philippines (Rudyard Kipling, 1899)

"The Phillipines makes a decent representative example of the US' first official exercise in colonial imperialism and formal empire [*], also referred to as "civilizational imperialism" - a project we're presently repeating.

"Lest this seem to be the bellicose pipedream of some dyspeptic desk soldier, let us remember that the military deal of our country has never been defensive warfare. Since the Revolution, only the United Kingdom has beaten our record for square miles of territory acquired by military conquest. Our exploits against the American Indian, against the Filipinos, the Mexicans, and against Spain are on a par with the campaigns of Genghis Khan, the Japanese in Manchuria and the African attack of Mussolini.

No country has ever declared war on us before we first obliged them with that gesture. Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war. And at the rate our armed forces are being implemented at present, the odds are against our fighting one in the near future." - --Major General Smedley D. Butler, America's Armed Forces: 'In Time of Peace', 1935. 1898-1914: The Phillipines.


*****************

Hi All,

Here is a  short bio on Kipling, Nobel Prize for Literature 1907, from the (Swedish) The Nobel Foundation: 

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) was born in Bombay, but educated in England at the United Services College, Westward Ho, Bideford. In 1882 he returned to India, where he worked for Anglo-Indian newspapers. His literary career began with Departmental Ditties (1886), but subsequently he became chiefly known as a writer of short stories. 

A prolific writer, he achieved fame quickly. Kipling was the poet of the British Empire and its yeoman, the common soldier, whom he glorified in many of his works, in particular Plain Tales from the Hills (1888) and Soldiers Three (1888), collections of short stories with roughly and affectionately drawn soldier portraits. His Barrack Room Ballads (1892) were written for, as much as about, the common soldier.

In 1894 appeared his Jungle Book, which became a children's classic all over the world. Kim (1901), the story of Kimball O'Hara and his adventures in the Himalayas, is perhaps his most felicitous work. Other works include The Second Jungle Book (1895), The Seven Seas, Captains Courageous (1897), The Day's Work (1898), Stalky and Co. (1899), Just So Stories (1902), Trafficks and Discoveries (1904), Puck of Pook's Hill (1906), Actions and Reactions (1909), Debits and Credits (1926), Thy Servant a Dog (1930), and Limits and Renewals (1932). During the First World War Kipling wrote some propaganda books. His collected poems appeared in 1933.

Kipling was the recipient of many honorary degrees and other awards. In 1926 he received the Gold Medal of the Royal Society of Literature, which only Scott, Meredith, and Hardy had been awarded before him. (1896),

From Nobel Lectures, Literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1969

Note that the Nobel Prize citation did not mention Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" poem, which indicated Kipling's racist and imperialistic beliefs and attitudes. In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations.

Its publication coincided with the beginning of the Philippine-American War and U.S. Senate ratification of the Treaty of Paris (1898) that placed Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines under American control.

Theodore Roosevelt, soon to become vice-president and then president, copied the poem and sent it to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, commenting that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.”

The racialism notion of the “White Man’s Burden” became a euphemism for imperialism.

- Bert

*****************************
THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
The United States and the Philippine Islands
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
(McClure's Magazine, February 12, 1899)

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--

The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen
Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

---

(1) Cloak, cover. (2) Since the days of Classical Greece, a laurel wreath has been a symbolic victory prize.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man27s_Burden

***********************************************************

PLEASE DONATE CORE SUBJECT BOOKS TO OUR HOMELAND (i.e. your hometown public schools, alma mater, etc.). Those books that you and/or your children do not need or want; or buy books from your local library during its cheap Book Sales. Also, cargo/door-to-door shipment is best.  It is a small sacrifice.  [clean up your closets or garage - donate books.THANKS!]

***********************************************************

I consider the following previous posts and the RECTO READER are essential about our homeland and us native, Malay Filipinos; and are therefore always presented in each new post. Click each to open/read.

1. WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW:
2. WHAT IS NATIONALISM [Filipino Nationalism]?
3. Our Colonial Mentality and Its Roots 
4. The Miseducation of the Filipino (Formation of our Americanized Mind)
5. Jose Rizal - Reformist or Revolutionary?
6. The Purpose of Our Past, Why Study (Our) History?
7. Studying and Rethinking Our Philippine History
8. Globalization (Neoliberalism) – The Road to Perdition in Our Homeland
9. Resisting Globalization (WTO Agreements)
10. Virtues of De-Globalization
11. Our Filipino Kind of Religion
12. Our Filipino Christianity and Our God-concept
13. When Our Religion Becomes Evil

THE RECTO READER is presented in several postings. Click each to open/read:

• THE RECTO READER: Nationalism,Internationalism,Ultra-Nationalism, Part 1A of 6
• THE RECTO READER: Mission of Nationalism, Part 1B of 6
• THE RECTO READER: Economic Independence,Economic Nationalism,Part 2A of 6
• THE RECTO READER: Economic Nationalism Means Industrialization,Part 2B of 6
• THE RECTO READER: Industrialization: The Alternative to Poverty, Part 2C of 6
• THE RECTO READER: The Fallacy of "Philippines First," Part 2D of 6
• THE RECTO READER: Parity Rights, Currency Dependence, Foreign Loans versus Foreign Investments, Part 2E of 6

NOTE: Recto's cited cases, examples or issues were of his time, of course; but realities in our homeland in the present and the foreseeable future are/expectedly much, much worse. Though I am tempted to update them with current issues, it's best to leave them as they are since Recto's paradigms about our much deepened national predicament still ring relevant, valid and true. In short, Recto saw the forest and never got lost in the trees.- Bert

NOTES ABOUT THIS WEBLOG:

THE FILIPINO MIND blog contains 524 published postings you can view, as of April 16, 2012. Go to the sidebar to search Past & Related Postings, click LABEL [number in parenthesis = total of related postings]; or use the GOOGLE SEARCH at the sidebar using key words [labels, or tags] for topics of interest to you. Also at the bottom of each posting, you can click a label or tag to open related topics.

(1) Bold/Underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked postings/articles.

(2). To write or read a comment, please scroll down to the bottom of this weblog htttp://www.thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/ (the current post or another post you read and may want to respond) and click on "Comments." ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED EFFECTIVE 12/07/11.

(3).Visit my other website to read/download publications: Click here:SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMind; or type it on GOOGLE Search.View/Free Download pdf versions of: postings, eBooks, articles (120 and growing). Or another way to access, go to the sidebar of the THE FILIPINO MIND website and click on SCRIBD. PLEASE Share!

Statistics for my associated website:SCRIBD/theFilipinoMind (as of 12/06/2011):

119 FREE AND DOWNLOADABLE documents 

148,510 reads

2,750 downloads

(4). Some postings and other relevant events are now featured in Google+, BMD_Facebook, BMD_Twitter and BMD_Google Buzz. (<--- all="all" available="available" but="but" click="click" each="each" for="for" i="i" maximize="maximize" means="means" mission.="mission." much="much" my="my" not="not" or="or" so="so" socialize="socialize" span="span" the="the" to="to" try="try">

(5) Translate to your own language. Go to the sidebar and Click on GOOGLE TRANSLATOR (56 languages - copy and paste sentences, paragraphs and whole articles, Google translates a whole posting in seconds, including to Filipino!!).

(6) The postings are oftentimes long and a few readers have claimed being "burnt out."  My apologies. As the selected topics are not for entertainment but for deep thought and hopefully to rock the boat of complacency..From suggestions by readers, I have therefore added some contemporary music to provide a break. Check out bottom of posting to play Sarah Brightman, Andrea Bocelli, Sting, Chris Botti, Josh Groban, etc. 

(7) Songs on Filipino nationalism: please reflect on the lyrics (messages) as well as the beautiful renditions. Other Filipino Music links at blog sidebar.  :

BAYAN KO by Freddie Aguilar <--- class="Apple-style-span" nbsp="nbsp" span="span" style="background-color: white;">click to play song.

”Bayan Ko” by KUH LEDESMA <-- class="Apple-style-span" span="span" style="background-color: white;">click to play song.

”Bayan Ko” by a Korean choir <--click play="play" song.="song." span="span" to="to">

”Sa Kuko ng Agila” by Freddie Aguilar <-- click="click" play="play" song.="song." span="span" to="to"> 

”Huwad na Kalayaan” by Freddie Aguilar <-- click="click" play="play" song.="song." span="span" to="to">

This War [Invasion & Occupation of Iraq] Came from a Think Tank


It's DEJA VU all over again, a little over a century thereafter.

We were taught by historical textbooks that official American foreign policy pronouncements then were : The Philippines - a group of islands inhabited by savages, gooks, niggers; and thus occupied by Americans supposedly to be christianized, civilized and educated/prepared for self-government under a providential and benevolent "manifest destiny".

Now, it is Iraq, invaded and occupied supposedly to destroy a haven for "world terrorism" and a source of terrorist threat, with "weapons of mass destruction", and to free its people from former US-backed dictator, "our son of a bitch" Saddam Hussein and to impose a regime change towards democracy.

The Road to Perdition is indeed paved with "good" intentions.

"The chief business of America is business" - President Calvin Coolidge, 1925
"The glory of the United States is business" - Wendell L. Willkie,1936

****************************************************************

This War Came from a Think Tank
By Jochen Boelsche*, Der Spiegel

It was in no way a conspiracy. As far back as 1998, ultra right US think tanks had developed and published plans for an era of US world domination, sidelining the UN and attacking Iraq. These people were not taken seriously. But now they are calling the tune.

German commentators and correspondents have been confused. Washington has tossed around so many types of reasons for war on Baghdad "that it could make the rest of the world dizzy", said the South German Times.

And the Nuremburg News reported on public statements last week by Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer to an inner circle in the US that war can only be avoided if Saddam not only disarms, but also leaves office. Regime change is a condition that is in none of the barely remembered 18 UN resolutions. The Nuremburg News asked in astonishment whether Fleischer had made the biggest Freudian slip of his career or whether he spoke with the President's authority.

It's not about Saddam's weapons
So it goes. Across the world critics of President Bush are convinced that a second Gulf War is actually about replacing Saddam, whether the dictator is involved with WMD or not. "It's not about his WMD," writes the German born Israeli peace campaigner, Uri Avnery, "its purely a war about world domination, in business, politics, defence and culture".

There are real models for this. They were already under development by far right think tanks in the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from the inner circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches, from weapons corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans for a new world order. In the plans of these hawks a doctrine of "might is right" would operate, and the mightiest of course would be the last superpower, America.

Visions of world power on the Web
To this end the USA would need to use all means - diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression - to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the ability to keep any possible rival weak. These 1990's schemes of the think tanks - from sidelining the UN to a series of wars to establish dominance - were in no way secret. Nearly all these scenarios have been published; some are accessible on the Web.

For a long time these schemes were shrugged off as fantasy produced by intellectual mavericks - arch-conservative relics of the Reagan era, the coldest of cold-war warriors, hibernating in backwaters of academia and lobby groups. At the White House an internationalist spirit was in the air. There was talk of partnerships for universal human rights, of multi-lateralism in relations with allies. Treaties on climate-change, weapons control, on landmines and international justice were on the agenda.

Saddam's fall was planned in 1998
In this liberal climate there came, nearly unnoticed, a 1997 proposal of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that forcefully mapped out "America's global leadership". On 28 Jan 1998 the PNAC project team wrote to President Clinton demanding a radical change in dealings with the UN and the end of Saddam. While it was not clear whether Saddam was developing WMD, he was, they said, a threat to the US, Israel, the Arab States and "a meaningful part of the world's oil reserves".

They put their case as follows: "In the short term this means being ready to lead military action, without regard for diplomacy. In the long term it means disarming Saddam and his regime. We believe that the US has the right under existing Security Council resolutions to take the necessary steps, including war, to secure our vital interests in the Gulf. In no circumstances should America's politics be crippled by the misguided insistence of the Security Council on unanimity."

Blueprint for an offensive
This letter might have remained yellowing in the White House archives if it did not read like a blue-print for a long-desired war, and still might have been forgotten if ten PNAC members had not signed it. These signatories are today all part of the Bush Administration. They are Dick Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad - fresh from being special ambassador and kingmaker in Afghanistan, now Bush's special ambassador to the Iraqi opposition.

But even before that - over ten years ago - two hardliners from this group had developed a defence proposal that created a global scandal when it was leaked to the US press. The suggestion that was revealed in 1992 in The New York Times was developed by two men who today are Cabinet members - Wolfowitz and Libby. It essentially argued that the doctrine of deterrence used in the Cold War should be replaced by a new global strategy. Its goal was the enduring preservation of the superpower status of the US - over Europe, Russia and China. Various means were proposed to deter potential rivals from questioning America's leadership or playing a larger regional or global role. The paper caused major concerns in the capitals of Europe and Asia.

But the critical thing, according to the Wolfowitz-Libby paper, was complete American dominance of Eurasia. Any nation there that threatened the USA by acquiring WMD should face pre-emptive attack, they said. Traditional alliances should be replaced by ad-hoc coalitions. This 1992 masterplan then formed the basis of a PNAC paper that was concluded in September 2000, just months before the start of the Bush Administration. That September 2000 paper (Rebuilding America's Defences) was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of "maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests".

The cavalry on the new frontier
Amongst other things, this paper said, the USA must re-arm and build a missile shield in order to put itself in a position to fight numerous wars simultaneously and chart its own course. Whatever happened, the Gulf would have to be in US control: "The US has sought for years to play an ongoing role in the security architecture of the Gulf. The unresolved conflict with Iraq provides a clear basis for our presence, but quite independent of the issue of the Iraqi regime, a substantial US presence in the Gulf is needed."

The paper describes these US forces stationed overseas in the raw language of the Wild West, calling them "the Cavalry on the New American Frontier". Even peace efforts, the paper continues, should have the stamp of the USA rather than the UN.

Gun-at-the-head diplomacy
Scarcely had President Bush (Jr) won his controversial election victory and replaced Clinton than he brought the hardliners from the PNAC into his administration. The old campaigner Richard Perle (who once told the Hamburg Times about 'gun-at-the-head diplomacy') found himself in the key role at the Defense Policy Board. This board operates in close cooperation with Pentagon boss Rumsfeld.

At a breath-taking pace the new power-bloc began implementing the PNAC strategy. Bush ditched international treaty after international treaty, shunned the UN and began treating allies as inferiors. After the attacks of 11 September, as fear ruled the US and anthrax letters circulated, the Bush cabinet clearly took the view that the time was ripe to dust off the PNAC plans for Iraq. Just six days after 11 September, Bush signed an order to prepare for war against the terror network and the Taliban. Another order went to the military, that was secret initially, instructing them to develop scenarios for a war in Iraq.

A son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch
Of course the claims of Iraqi control of the 11 September hijackers never were proven, just like the assumption that Saddam was involved with the anthrax letters (they proved to be from sources in the US Military). But regardless, Richard Perle claimed in a TV interview that "there can be no victory in the war on terror if Saddam remains in power".

The dictator, demanded Perle, must be deposed by the US as a matter of priority "because he symbolises contempt for all Western values". But Saddam had always been that way, even when he gained power in Iraq with US backing. At that time a Secret Service officer from the US embassy in Baghdad reported to CIA Headquarters: "I know Saddam is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". And after the US had supported the dictator in his war with Iran, the retired CIA Director Robert Gates says he had no illusions about Saddam. The dictator, says Gates "was never a reformer, never a democrat, just a common criminal". But the PNAC paper does not make clear why Washington now wants to declare war, even without UN support, on its erstwhile partner.

A shining example of freedom
There is a lot of evidence that Washington wants to remove the Iraqi regime in order to bring the whole Middle East more fully under its economic sphere of influence. Bush puts it somewhat differently - after a liberation that is necessitated by breaches of international law, Iraq "will serve as a dramatic and shining exampled of freedom to other nations of the region". Experts like Udo Steinbach, Director of the German-Orient Institute in Hamburg, have doubts about Bush's bona fides. Steinbach describes the President's announcement last week of a drive to democratise Iraq as "a calculated distortion aimed at justifying war". There is nothing currently to indicate that Bush truly is pursuing democratisation in the region. "Particularly in Iraq," says Steinbach, "I cannot convince myself that after the fall of Saddam something democratic could take shape."

Control the flow of oil, control your rivals
This so called pre-emptive war that the PNAC ideologues have longed for against Iraq also serves, in the judgement of Uri Avnery, to take the battle to Europe and Japan. It brings US dominance of Eurasia closer. Avnery notes: "American occupation of Iraq would secure US control not only of the extensive oil reserves of Iraq, but also the oil of the Caspian Sea and the Gulf States. With control of the supply of oil the US can stall the economies of Germany, France and Japan at will, just by manipulating the oil price. A lower price would damage Russia, a higher one would shaft Germany and Japan. That's why preventing this war is essential to Europe's interests, apart from Europeans' deep desire for peace."

"Washington has never been shy about its desire to tame Europe," argues Avnery. In order to implement his plans for world dominance, says Avnery, "Bush is prepared to spill immense quantities of blood, so long as it's not American blood".

The world will toe the American line
The arrogance of the hawks in the US administration, and their plan to have the world toe their line while they decide on war or peace, shocks experts like the international law expert Hartmut Schiedermair from Cologne. The American "crusading zeal" that can make such statements he says is "highly disturbing". Similarly Harald Mueller - a leading peace researcher - has long criticised the German Government for "assiduously overlooking and tacitly endorsing" the dramatic shift in US foreign policy of 2001. He says the agenda of the Bush administration is unmistakable:
"America will do as it pleases. It will obey international law if it suits, and break that law or ignore it if necessary ... The USA wants total freedom for itself, to be the aristocrat of world politics."

Infatuated with war
Even senior politicians in countries backing a second Gulf War are appalled by the radicals in the White House. Beginning last year, responding to the PNAC study, long-serving Labour MP Tam Dalyell raged against it in the House of Commons: "This is rubbish from right wing think tanks where bird-brained war-mongers huddle together - people who have never experienced the horror of war, but are infatuated with the idea of it." Even his own leader got a broad-side: "I am appalled that a Labour PM would hop into bed with such a troop of moral pygmies."

Across the Atlantic in mid February, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (at 86 years of age the so-called "Father of the Senate") spoke out. The longest serving member of that Chamber warned the pre-emptive war that the Right were advocating was a "distortion of long-standing concepts of the right of self-defence" and "a blow against international law". Bush's politics, he said "could well be a turning point in world history" and "lay the foundation for anti-Americanism" across much of the world. (Byrd's speech is a lonely voice in a US Senate silent on war.)

Holding the rest of the world in contempt
One person who is absolutely unequivocal about the problem of anti-Americanism is former President Jimmy Carter. He judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'".

The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter. "This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".

*Translated by Alun Breward. Der Spiegel, March 4, 2003

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0304thinktank.htm

"Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow citizens to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on." - Michael Parenti

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

"Free and responsible government by popular consent just can't exist without an informed public." - Bill Moyers at first ever National Conference on Media Reform in Madison, Wisconsin. November 2003

VOICES FOR IMPERIALISM: JOSIAH STRONG AND THE PROTESTANT CLERGY
William H. Berge, Eastern Kentucky University

************************************************************************************
NOTE: To those who wonder "why dig the past": We engage in revisiting and revising our past, i.e. historical "revisionism", to develop new emphases and raise new questions on assumptions and explanations on key historical issues and policies --given by our former colonial master America, government officials and authors of history books, then and now.

We Filipinos, here and abroad, past and present, relied and continue to use these official explanations that lead only to our ignorance of hidden truths and knowledge of untruths, thus perpetuating the (neo)colonial conditions of the past that brought only worsening impoverishment to the masses; foreign control of the national economy and the dwindling of our national patrimony . - BERT

"In order to read the destiny of a people, it is necessary to open the book of its past" - Dr. Jose P. Rizal
************************************************************************************************

Expansion was not a new theme in the history of the United States, but by the last decade of the nineteenth century its character had changed considerably. Prior to this time there had been a strong belief that the United States had as its destiny the spreading of its people from Canada to Mexico. As great as was enthusiasm for expansion, there was never any serious feeling that Americans should spread the wings of "their glorious eagle" over other lands. This self-imposed restriction slowly relaxed as the years passed.

Contemporaneous with this feeling of aloofness from world affairs and the complete absorption in domestic post-Civil War commercial and industrial expansion, there slowly evolved a feeling of world-destiny and "jingoism" which had as its basis a desire for the United States to assume its rightful place as a world power. 'The forces calling on the United States to assume this more vigorous role in world affairs made a spirited and vocal appearance in the nineties. In the vanguard of this movement were such men as James C. "Jingo Jim" Blame and Henry Cabot Lodge, Senators from Maine and Massachusetts, respectively; Alfred Thayer Mahan; Theodore Roosevelt; John W. Burgess, a Columbia University political scientist; John Fiske, a historian; and the Social Gospel leader, Josiah Strong.

Why did this movement find a rather receptive and significant audience in the 1890's when just a few years earlier expansionistic schemes were received with indifference in the United States? While it is true, as the historian Julius Pratt said in 1936, that American imperialism did not clearly dominate the scene until "its surprising triumph in the ratification of the treaty with Spain in February, 1899,"1 it cannot be denied that the voices raised for expansion were a significant force as early as 1890.

Many influences probably helped to foster this change in attitude by the American public. It could well be that the newly implemented colonial activity of Germany and the pleas voiced by American missionaries for the government to protect them and support their work served as important catalysts. The desire to spread democracy (which by this time appeared to have proved its worth) coupled with an intense national pride and a "sense of the white man's burden" are further possibilities. In addition, it could have been the less altruistic impulses given by a "desire for economic gain" and sheer love of power.2

All these explanations possess merit a have been suggested by competent observers.3 Another influence that cannot overemphasized was the great popularity of low-priced periodicals that marked the 1890's; magazines such as McClure's, Cosmopolitan, and Munsey's gave enthusiastic support to such optimistic movements as "the fever for expansion" and the "progress of Manifest Destiny."4

All other reasons acknowledged, paramount among the causes for the change of attitude on the part of the American public was the rather thorough indoctrination brought about by tile passionate appeals-both oral and written polemics-made by the advocates of expansion. According to Dexter Perkins, expansion found eloquent spokesmen in all fields.5 Josiah Strong could well be considered representative of the religious and sociological supporters of the movement.

The significance of this movement became apparent to Americans with the fall of Manila on August 13, 1898. The "Stars and Stripes" was now symbolic of a Pacific power, if not a world power. The acquisition of the Philippines provided the United States with territory that did not come under the purifying influence of the Teller Amendment.

In 1898 the following enlightened, if somewhat cynical, statement appeared in the Nation:
Nations trespass against nations without alleged warrant. Then come the apologists with abundant political and moral arguments for the deed: finally, theology takes a hand, and provides the acceptable sanction of religion. Thus, Imperialism, from gross aggression, becomes a high political expediency or moral duty.6

That this moral sanction did come from the lips and pens of clergymen is obvious in the following quotations from the June 1898 issue of Homiletic Review, a popular religious journal. The Reverend William S. Rainsford, Rector of St. George's Episcopal Church, New York, said, "This war has not been cunningly devised the strategists. America is being used to carry on the work of God in this war, which no politician could create, control, or gainsay."7 This sentiment was echoed by the pastor of the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, when he said the United States could have the "confidence of Divine approval."8

But the most eloquent statement was made by Wayland Hoyt, Pastor of Brick Presbyterian Church, New York City:

I do not believe that there ever was a war more righteous than that which we have undertaken, nor one closer to the law of the self-sacrificing Christ that we bear one another's burdens. If there ever was a war simply for the sake of humanity with no desire or purpose of national greed of any sort, it is the one that now is upon us, calling our soldiers and the navy to arms).9

While these men were sympathetic to the cause of expansion and eloquent in its defense, the most significant voice to be heard among the clergy was that of Theodore Roosevelt's friend, Josiah Strong. Strong's significance lies in his countless publications (which by 1900 included six of his eleven books, numerous articles and addresses, and his editorial activity with The Kingdom and Social Service), his extraordinary ability as a propagandist, and the position of importance which lie commanded in the eyes of his contemporaries as the Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance for the United States.

One of the most important aspects of Strong's best known book, Our Country, was that he recognized the destiny of the United States on the North American continent. To this he added a doctrine of world mission, which he closely intertwined with a theory of race supremacy).10 Here was a voice with an audience, which could be of great service to the movement headed by Mahan and Roosevelt. Would they recognize his significance?
It was Theodore Roosevelt who brought Alfred Thayer Mahan and Strong together for the first time. In August 1900, Roosevelt gave Strong a letter of introduction to the naval officer.

The importance of this introduction is reflected in Strong's statement of September 1900, from the preface of Expansion: Under New-World Conditions: I desire also to acknowledge the courtesy of Captain A. T. Mahan, the eminent writer on naval subjects, who read several chapters of the book which traverse the field which he is acknowledged to be the highest authority, and who was so good as to give me the benefit of his valuable criticism).11

Thus, there had been some consultation among these three men concerning Strong's book, which was to be one of the most eloquent moral sanctions and practical explanations of American expansion into the area of the Pacific at the turn of the century.

The spark which set off the flame of imperialism appeared in the form of the Spanish-American War. Obviously, this war could not appear to be a war for national aggrandizement, or the forces favoring expansion would suffer an irrevocable setback. "Have we a course of war so clear," asked the Nation, "so loftily imperative that all the hideousness of carnage and the fearful blow to civic progress must be hazarded in order to vindicate humanity and righteousness?"12 The affirmative answers of Strong and other clergymen mirrored a distaste for the "wretched" treatment the Cubans suffered at the hands of Spain.13

Strong said that God was everywhere at war with greed and selfishness. Christian people should combat selfishness in nations as well as in individuals. and force should be used if necessary. The motive behind the use of force was the criterion with which to judge the action.14 There was little doubt in the minds of the pro-war clergymen; the war against "Spanish tyranny" was a judicious use of force. The religious sanction for the war with Spain, which came from the Protestant clergy. was in part the result of intense anti-Catholic feeling. In 1898 Strong could see a challenge and duty for American missionaries in "Cuba and Porto [sic] Rico" since a "corrupt Christianity" had left them "practically reIisiousless."15 This feeling remained with Strong. In Our World: The New World Religion, his final book. Strong stated that many undesirable characteristics of the "so-called Latin races . . .are due to . . . religious training."16

In addition to the moral sanction for participation in world affairs and for imperialism. the advocates of expansion advanced practical arguments in support of their program-lack of available contiguous land, commercial advantages, and the protection of Americans abroad. Strong maintained that the exhaustion of unsettled arable lands in the temperate zones was a major cause for the shift of attention to the tropics. The time is likely to come, lie said, when the greatest hues of commerce "will run between the North and the South. the temperate regions and the tropics."17 There were many adherents to Strong's belief that 'Whether or not the constitution follows the flag, opportunity does."18

The author of Our Country felt that there was need for a large construction of what was to him the function of government in the protect ion of American Citizens and their property abroad. He called upon the United States to maintain order in Latin America. if need he. and to protect our citizens the world over. "Why should an American missionary," asked Strong, "be a man without a country?" Underdeveloped countries could no longer be allowed to spread disease and disorder throughout the world. He asked that these people be "controlled by enlightened nations both for their own sake and for the sake of the world"19

The final appeal expressed, from what appeared to he a practical and rational Point of view, was a call for the recognition of imperialism as the climax of a continuing movement. Strong felt that the United States had been destined to be the great imperial power. Had not the idea of "empire" been traveling westward for cemituries?20 Another explanation flavored with Darwinism was presented in the October 1900 Westminster Review, where the author held that the imperial tendencies of any country were but one step in a process that has been in action since the first social organization.21

It should be remembered, however, that the motivating force and ideological basis for Strong's support of expansion did not lie in a desire to make the United States politically and commercially powerful. It went much deeper than this. Strong was motivated by an intense sense of mission and divine destiny. The ideology of this mission and destiny was a combination of racism, religion, and nationalism.

The first tenet of Strong's argument was an expression of belief in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race. Strong recognized that the term "Anglo-Saxon" was a misnomer but he continued to use it for want of a better term. As did many others, Strong used "Anglo-Saxon" to designate English-speaking peoples.22 The Anglo-Saxon, according to Strong, was the great race of history. They were! the most vigorous and vital of all peoples, and their ability to adapt themselves to adverse conditions was an innate trait which permitted them to stand apart. While discussing the qualities of inventiveness, diligence, and respect for law, Strong exclaimed: "It is those qualities, slowly acquired through long ages of struggle, and born in Anglo-Saxons today, rather than the lands. the riches, the industrial, social and political institutions into which they are born, that make Anglo-Saxons free and mighty."23 He discovered in Anglo-Saxons an overwhelming superiority over the peoples in tropical areas. "Among races, as among individuals of the same race," Strong proclaimed. "there will he permanent differences of temperament and tendency, of adaption and skill."24

One factor which would make the Anglo-Saxons forever invincible, Strong believed, was their ability to expand. They could maintain their dominance easily because they were growing rapidly in numbers, and they possessed enough territory to support a much larger popuIation.25 In 1899 there was a general feeling that Anglo-Saxons were superior to the "doomed" Latins.26 Major political figures such as Joseph Chamberlain, the British statesman, and Chauncey Depew. The American lawyer and politician, praised the Spanish-American War as the blessing that united the two leading families of the Anglo-Saxon race, England and the United States.27 But the main strength of the race., according to Strong, was to he found in two principles which he associated closely with Anglo-S axons. Every great race has been the promulgator of at least one "great idea." he said. hut the Anglo-Saxons were doubly blessed. The English-speaking people were the torch bearers for civil liberty and "a pure spiritual Christianity."28

It was the influence of this unique religion which, in Strong's view at least, gave the Anglo-Saxon some compulsion for expansion. "The essence of Christianity is love," he exclaimed, "and love always gives. It can never be satisfied so long as there is anyone who has not received. By its very nature, therefore, Christianity is expansive. It will have no banks, it must flood the world as the waters cover the sea."29 It was this evangelistic aspect of Christianity which made every Christian, regardless of his status, a missionary. The Anglo-Saxons, with their vigorous nature and "pure" Christianity, appeared to be the people who must assume the burden of world evangelism. Strong's devotion to "civic liberty" and "spiritual Christianity," and the significance he attributed to these ideas. are reflected in this passage from Our Country:

Without controversy, these are the forces which, in the past, have contributed most to the elevation of the human race, and they must continue to be, in the future, the most efficient ministers to its progress, It follows then that the Anglo-Saxon, as the great representative of these two ideas, the depository of these two great blessings sustains peculiar relations to the world's future, is divinely commissioned to be, in a peculiar sense, his brother's keeper.30

With his theory of racial superiority, Strong mixed a liberal portion of nationalism. The compound resulting from the ensuing reaction was an "elite" group within this superior race. "Our national genius is Anglo-Saxon," he wrote, "but not English, its distinctive type is the result of a finer nervous organization, which is certainly being developed in this country."31 Thus he was expressing his convictions when he said, "to be a Christian and an Anglo-Saxon and an American in this generation is to stand at the very mountain top of privilege."32 What conditions prevailed which made Strong confident that the United States would be the "home" of the Anglo-Saxons? Strong listed seven physical attributes that contributed to North America's superiority:
(1) Seven-elevenths of Anglo-Saxon territory is in North America (2) All of this territory is contiguous (3) There is room to expand (4) There are abundant resources (5) North America is blessed with an invigorating climate (6) It has a splendid location (North America lies on the trade routes between the East and the West.) (7) The United States already holds the lead in population and wealth among the Anglo-Saxons.33 "North America, the future home of this race, is twice as large as all Europe, and," Strong claimed, "is capable of sustaining the present population of the globe."34

In addition to the physical advantages found in North America, Strong listed six features found in Anglo-Saxons which promoted the cause of supremacy:
(1) the love of civil liberty (2) the prevalence of spiritual Christianity (3) a great money making power (England was the richest country of Europe, Strong asserted, but the United States was even more wealthy than England.) (4) a genius for colonizing (5) a persistent energy among its people (6) the elasticity of American social institutions (The opportunity for vertical mobility in American society was stimulating.)35

In 1891 Strong advanced, as proof of American superiority, the fact that inventors from the United States were accorded more honors and prizes than were inventors from other countries. He strengthened his claim substantially when lie demonstrated, with official government statistics, that Americans had achieved a higher level of physical development than other peoples.36 This, combined with the superior intellectual power which he attributed to Anglo-Saxons, left Americans as a people unique in history.37 An additional attribute which made Anglo-Saxons in the United States superior to those in the British Isles is (in the tone of Darwin's theory of Natural selection) the race's "highly mixed origin." He said that mixed races such as the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Anglo-Saxons had always been superior to pure races. This claim does not, however, remove him from the "racist" class; he qualified his stand somewhat by adding that the "new blood" brought into the United States would largely be the same elements which make up the Anglo-Saxon mixture and, therefore, the general type would be preserved.38

Strong was outspoken in his demand for stringent governmental regulation of immigration. Obviously, he was quite content to see population flow from "acceptable areas" such as Northwest Europe, but the observation that late nineteenth-century immigration was coming from other quarters concerned him. He recognized American attractiveness, improved travel facilities, and "Old World" purges as being the greatest inducements for emigration to the United States. Thus, he lamented the fact that his country was getting the potentially dangerous malcontents of Europe. The "typical immigrant is a European peasant," he said in 1891, "whose horizon has been narrow, whose moral and religious training has been meager or false [i.e., Catholic], and whose ideas of life are low." Many of these people, he added, "belong to the pauper and criminal class."39 The principal basis for Strong's anti-immigration feeling was fear of Rome.

That lie considered Catholicism to be a serious obstacle in the path of American and Anglo-Saxon greatness is reflected in this passage from Our Country:
The growing spirit of charity which thinketh no evil, is slow to recognize the fact that most Roman Catholics are Catholics first and citizens afterward. The fact remains, however, and makes it possible to throw the Roman Catholic Church into a single political scale. Those who do not believe that the priesthood has both the power and the disposition to cast a substantially solid Catholic vote, simply do not know what some others do know.40 He punctuated his claim by stating that it was the Catholic vote which kept Tammany Hall in power.

Strong thus believed that the uniqueness and strength of the "race" could be preserved only if the federal government took steps to exclude from the United States political "amoebae," whose votes could be molded at will by a religious hierarchy. In contrast, he welcomed, and would have even condoned the soliciting of, immigration by "invertebrates" who had been nurtured on a pure and spiritual religion. Ostensibly, the only basis for his anti-Catholic feeling was his belief that their dictated vote would be a serious infringement upon the American democratic process.41

Upon establishing the Anglo-Saxon, and especially the Americans, in a place of honor, Strong demanded that they fulfill the mission they had as the greatest representatives of the pure spiritual Christianity. Surely this nation had to spread not only its religion, but also its material blessings, throughout the world.42 Even more significant than Strong's recognition of the mission of this race, found in its purest and most vital form in the United States, was his belief that the Anglo-Saxon's. destiny had guidance from God. In the evolutionary process which Strong saw as forming the Anglo-Saxon into the mightiest race of all time, there was evidence of the divine hand. To Strong, evolution must have been God's most glorious method of making His presence known. The fact that the United States had the greatest deposits of minerals and was blessed with other natural resources was no accident, Strong thought. "When storing away the fuel of the ages," he said, "God knew the place and work to which he had am pointed us. . . ."43

That God's influence was apparent to Strong in 1900 is revealed in a passage from Expansion:
As there are forces at work in human affairs which are mightier than human power, so there is an intelligence higher than human knowledge, which is guiding human destinies. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons laid hold of what proved to be the best portions of the earth-lands which commanded the commerce, the population, and the power of the world's future, and lands which are defended from invasion by nature-was not due to the foresight of any man or of any number of men.44 If God has had any interest in human affairs, it will have been in "progress and in civil and religious liberty."45

Strong insisted that God's work was evident in places other than the United States. "God has two hands. Not only is He preparing in our civilization the die with which to stamp nations," declared Strong, "he is preparing mankind to receive our impress."46 God's destiny for this race of the greatest numbers is best summarized in Strong's words:

It seems to me that God, with infinite wisdom and skill, is training the Anglo-Saxon race for an hour sure to come in the world's future. Heretofore there has always been in the history of the world a comparatively unoccupied land westward, into which the crowded countries of the East have poured their surplus populations. But the widening waves of migration which millenniums ago rolled east and west from the valley of the Euphrates, meet today on our Pacific coast. There are no more new worlds. The unoccupied arable lands of the earth are limited, and will soon be taken. The time is coming when the pressure of population on the means of subsistence will be felt here as it is now felt in Europe and Asia. Then will the world enter upon a new stage of its history-the final competition of racer, for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled.47 Is there any doubt that a man with these convictions could, in all sincerity, condone and sanction a war such as the one with Spain?

With this frame of reference Strong's declaration concerning the use of force in Cuba is understandable:
The forging of nations is a long process. Often the fires which bring the great mass to the right temperature are slow, and the changes which take place are obscure. Then suddenly on God's great anvil of war are struck the mighty blows which shape the nation to higher uses.48
The finest possible example demonstrating Strong's theories at work in a polemical defense of expansion is found in the arguments he and his friends used to sanction the action of the United States in connection with the Philippines. In examining the effect of the war with Spain, Strong beheld "new possibilities" open to Americans at the turn of the century.49

These "new possibilities" were largely the same commercial advantages becoming apparent to American businessmen. Strong reminded his readers of the proximity of the Philippines and China, the great potential market of the world with her four hundred million mouths to feed and a like number of backs to clothe. Continuing his appeal for annexation of the Islands, Strong termed the Pacific Ocean the "New Mediterranean." This ocean, he explained, will command the same position, as center of the world's commerce, that the Mediterranean held before the discovery of the New World.50

Strong demanded that Anglo-Saxons acknowledge their obligations and opportunities by assuming leadership in this strategic area. If, lie asked, we placed he Pacific an adequate navy, with sufficient bases, what could prevent it from becoming an Anglo-Saxon sea?51 Strong maintained that one means of insuring Anglo-Saxon dominance in the Pacific would be for the United States to fulfill of Theodore Roosevelt's fondest dreams by building a canal across Central America. Strong's eagerness to support his friend is reflected in the book Expansion. In a section devoted to a series of pro-canal arguments -geographic commercial and political-Strong said:

The cutting of the Isthmian Canal will he the last geographical event of the first magnitude. There are no more isthmuses the severing of which would shift the commerce of the world. The Suez Canal gave England an immense advantage. The Nicaragua Canal will transfer the advantage to the United States, with the certainty that it cannot again he shifted by any geographical cause. The commercial supremacy of the Pacific will be final.52

In the case of the Philippines, moral arguments were offered in behalf of annexation. It is our duty, urged Strong, to keep the Philippines, if for no other reason in that these people are not capable of home rule. If the United States left, anarchy would follow or, even worse, they would fall into the hands of a foreign power. Recognizing that there were both practical and moral sanctions for support of annexation, Strong concluded: "As I see it, duty and polity unite in lung us to retain them."53 What could be more convincing than this'? The Philippine problem was bound to Strong's doctrine of racial superiority. He could see but one race posing a threat to the Anglo-Saxon: the "Slav." The most vital Slavic people were the Russians, whose geographical proximity to China and the Philippines made them ominous indeed. "Is the Anglo-Saxon or e Slav," questioned Strong, "to command the Pacific and therefore the world's ttire?"54 Strong prophesied that the twentieth century would see Russia and e United States facing each other across the Pacific.

By comparing and contrasting the two races, Strong demonstrated the reasons r his claim that these two peoples would stand above all others and compete r world supremacy. The resemblances of the two "races" were listed in Expansion:

(1) They are equal in numbers. (2) Both are growing rapidly. (3) Both races have remarkable powers of assimilation, and they are the only races that have this power. (4) Each race has a genius for organization and government-and they are the only races of which this can be said. (5) Each race is in possession of a vast territory.55

At this point there would seem to he no advantage on one side or the other. The seminal ideas which drive these two groups mirror a decisive difference. The Slavic people, Strong contended, represent absolutism, in both religion and polities. while the Anglo-Saxons are the representatives of religious and civil liberty).56 There could he no doubt in Strong's mind that the "final death-struggle between absolutism and liberty" would have "the Slav on one side and the Anglo-Saxon on the other."57 With this in mind, Strong made a plea for the United States to retain the insular possessions she controlled after the Spanish-American War. They were needed to assist Anglo-Saxons in obtaining control of the Pacific so that they could do God's work in this vital area. Strong asserted his belief that the United States needed these islands because "Russia's influence in Corea" was growing.58

By 1901 expansion had become a reality. The champions of imperialism had won their battle. What had been the influences which had elicited their aid in this battle? Mahan's motive could well have been "national power for its own sake." The love of adventure and the highest type of patriotism prompted Roosevelt to carry the banner of imperialism. Perhaps Strong's most valuable attribute was his evangelical fervor. He preached a gospel proclaiming a new age in world politics.; the laws of "Love" and "Service" are as binding upon nations as upon individuals. The United States has been selected by God to demonstrate this to the world. To carry out its "divine mission" the "home of the Anglo-Saxons" must be a world power. The United States, Strong pleaded, must educate, by example, all peoples to this new world-view. Regardless of the reaction of other nations, the United States must treat all countries in a manner revealing the Christian ethic.59 Permeated with this altruistic spirit, Strong begged the United States to accept her responsibilities "in behalf of Christian civilization."60 "My plea is not," said Strong, "save America for America's sake, but, save America for the world's sake."61

Expansionists such as Roosevelt and Mahan were as able as Strong in their presentation of moral sanctions, hut they realized that justification was more palatable if it had its genesis in the pulpit. and Strong's following was large. In addition to helping bring about a change in America's outlook as to her place in world affairs, these optimistic exponents of expansion added another rung to the ladder which led to "missionary diplomacy."62 Americans are careful to have just moral cause for their actions in world polities, and the "expansionists of 1898" were a scintillating example of this fact. Real or imagined, moral justification was provided when needed. In their obsession with moral sanctions, Strong and his contemporaries surely "walked in the shadow of John Calvin."63

NOTES

1. Expansionists of 1898: The Acquisition of Hawaii and the Spanish Islands (The Albert Shaw Lectures on Diplomatic History, 1936: New York: Peter Smith, 1951), p. vii.
2. Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power (The Albert Shaw Lectures on Diplomatic History, 1953: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), p. ix.
3. See Willard Thorp, Merle Curti, and Carlos Baker (eds.). American Issues, Vol. 1: The Social Record (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1941), p.893; Carl Schurz., "Armed or Unarmed Peace?" Harper's Weekly, 41 (June 19, 1897), p. 603; and Henry Steele Commager, The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character since the I880's (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 47.
4. Frank Luther Mott, "The Magazine Revolution and Popular Ideas in the Nineties," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 44 (April 21,1954), 195-203.
5. Hands Off: A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1941), p. 230.
6. Nation, 66 (June 16, 1898), 454.
7. "The National Obligation," Homiletic Review, 35 (June 1898), 518.
8. Stephen W. Dana. "Our Business," Ibid., p. 520.
9. "A Righteous War." Ibid., p. 518.
10. Josiah Strong. Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis (rev. ed.; New York: Baker and Taylor Company, 1891), pp. 29-43. Hereinafter cited as Our Country.
11. Strong, Expansion: Under New-World Conditions (New York: Baker and Taylor Company, 1900), p. 10. Hereinafter cited as Expansion.
12. Nation, 66 (March 24, 1989), 218. The same article reported that military men (Admiral William F. Sicard and General Nelson S. Miles) and the Navy Department had expressed opinions that we were ready for war.
13. Especially odious to Americans were the atrocities committed by General Valeriano Weyler. Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People (3rd ed.; New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Inc.,l946), pp. 495-99.
14. Strong, "The Preacher in Relation to the New Expansion," Homiletic Review, 42 (March 1898), 493.
15. Ibid., p.488.
16. Strong, Our World: The New World Religion (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1915), p. 203. Hereinafter cited as New World Religion.
17. Expansion, pp. 21-29, 34, 42, 43.
18. Strong, Homiletic Review, 42 (March 1898), 488. Earlier Strong said that "commerce follows the missionary" (Our Country, p. 28).
19. Expansion, pp. 245-46, 249.
20. Our Country, p. 215.
21. Ernest D. Bell, "The Mission of Empire," Westminster Review, 154 (October, 1900), 446-50. For an excellent denial of the argument which sanctions imperialism as a step in the process of evolution, see J. C. Giggin, "Evolution vs. Imperialism," Arena, 23 (February 1900), 141-48.
22. Expansion, pp. 38, 187.
23. Ibid., pp. 38, 19, 76.
24. Ibid., p. 41.
25. Our Country, pp.210-11.
26. Nation, 69 (December 28, 1899), 481-82.
27. Homiletic Review, 36 (July 1898), 47.
28. Spiritual Christianity, according to Strong, was necessarily Protestantism. Much of his anti-immigration sentiment was caused by fear of what the Catholic immigrants from southern and eastern Europe would do in the way of corrupting our "brand" of Christianity. In addition, he felt that our civil liberty would be in jeopardy. Strong did not trust, at the polls, any member of a church which was controlled by a hierarchy.
29. Strong, Homiletic Review, 42 (March 1898), 488-94.
30. Our Country, p. 210.
31. Ibid., pp. 216-17.
32. Strong, The New Era (New York: Baker and Taylor Company, 1893), p. 354. Hereinafter cited as New Era.
33. Our Country, p. 214.
34. New Era, p.75.
35. Our Country, pp. 220-21.
36. Ibid., pp. 26-27,218.
37. New Era, pp. 54-67.
38. Our Country, pp. 2 19-20.
39. Ibid., pp. 45, 56.
40. Ibid., p. 96.
41. He remained consistent in his abhorrence of religions with a hierarchy. Mormons were no less exempt from his attacks than were Catholics. "I do not mean to imply that there are no waste lands in Utah," Strong said. "Portions of the territory are as worthless as some of its people." Ibid., p. 32.
42. Ibid., pp. 222-23.
43. Ibid., p. 25.
44. Expansion, p. 209.
45. Ibid., p. 208.
46. Our County, p. 225.
47. Ibid., p. 222.
48. Expansion, pp. 18-19.
49. Ibid., p. 19.
50. Ibid., pp. 132-33, 163.
51. Ibid., pp. 185, 204, 205.
52. Ibid., p. l64; see also, pp. 135-62.
53. Ibid., p.201.
54. Ibid., pp. 186, 194.
55. Ibid., pp. 187-89.
56. Ibid., pp. 190-91.
57. Ibid., p. 203.
58. Ibid., pp. 195, 201-203, 287-92.
59. Ibid., pp. 257-64, 272; Strong, Homiletic Review, 42 (March 1898), 489-91; and New World Religion, pp. 191, 194.
60. Expansion, p. 302.
61. New Era, p. 80.
62. The term "missionary diplomacy" appears in Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910-1917, in The New American Nation Series, eds. H. S. Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1954), pp. 81-82. Professor Link uses the term in the same manner as it is used here. That is, it has to do with diplomacy, carried out by moralists with an acute awareness of America's mission, which has as its genesis a concern for the welfare of other nations.
63. Ralph H. Gabriel, The Course of American Democratic Thought (2nd ed.; New York: Ronald Press Company, 1956), p. 385.
Copyright © 1973, 2000, Middle Tennessee State University.Border States On-Line is hosted by Georgetown College. This page was last updated on 3/30/00. Border States On-Line Site Map
This web page is maintained byDr. Harold D. Tallant, Department of History, Georgetown College400 East College Street, Georgetown, KY 40324, (502) 863-8075E-mail: htallant@georgetowncollege.edu