Etes-vous
bon en civi US? Faites le quiz ici et gagnez un
CD-Rom d'une valeur de 250F
“The March of America’s
Flag ” (1898)
Albert
J. Beveridge
Introduction:
Defining
the text – Later
published in the Indianapolis Journal, this speech by senator Beveridge was
pronounced a month after the signing of the armistice and during the campaign
for the mid-term elections of 1898. The author is an enthusiastic imperialist.
Brief
analysis/global definition of the text –
main idea seems to be summed up in the title. It appears as a patriotic hymn to
expansion. Beveridge now envisages a colonial role for the US, defined in terms
of a divine mission, more explicitly he envisages the annexation of the
Philippines.
The
aim – The aim is
to celebrate the American victory, but behind his enthusiasm lies a desire to
answer to the criticism on the part of public opinion referred to “they” in
the text (paragraph 10). They constitute an opposition very reluctant to accept
the idea of America as a colonial power. The anti-imperialists, though not yet
organised represented a great part of the electorate.
The
organisation of the text
& the outline of our commentary– The text opens with a celebration
of America in epic terms (paragraphs 1,2,3). Then in paragraphs 4,5,6,7,
Beveridge sums up what to him is the main issue in this electoral campaign –
whether or not an imperialist policy should be pursued.
This
will justify an examination of his main argument – the justification of imperialism.
In paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11, Beveridge answers the objections of the anti-imperialists.
Before concluding on the divine destiny of the US, we will also study the way he
deals with these objections.
I]
Beveridges's justification of imperialism: the celebration of a myth.
II] His answer to the objections or how does he present and answer their
arguments?
I]
Historical context, a brief introduction – One keyword comes to mind to
define Beveridge's main argument for imperialism: patriotism. But behind lies
the notion of celebration of America's power.
The
first argument resides in America's geographical position perceived as a source
of power – in terms of size, resources, positions between "the two
imperial oceans." It implies America's superiority over all European powers
including England.
Next we find an implicit reference to the myth of the West with reference to
unexplored land or wilderness (paragraph 3). By mentioning the heroes of wars
and expansion such as Zachary Taylor and John Frémont, Beveridge offers a
mythic view of the "conquest of the west in the 1840s" (paragraph 7)
and his choice is certainly not innocent.
His third argument is that of racial superiority with allusions to the "blood"
(paragraph 2) and his evocation of power associated with the virility of the
"multiplying people." The expansion of the American people is not
attributed to immigration but to virility. Again this indicates a mythic
approach to the problems of America. Roosevelt's constant posing as a virile and
energetic man on numerous pictures was far from fortuitous. The explanation of
this power lies in revitalising an idea not so far from the notion of
transplantation popularised by John de Crevecoeur and redeveloped by Turner. At
this time this transformation came rather from competition on the Frontier. In
association with this we find the cult of power, force and energy suggesting the
Darwinian twist in his ideas.
Other arguments appear to account for the different sources of power and the
justification of imperialism.
-
The strength of America's economy is explained by the puritan virtues. At the
time the myth of the hard working puritan was being codified forming, along with
the sense of Heavenly mission and the democratic institutions, a nebula of
arguments in favour of expansion.
- Religious arguments: the text reads like a reformulation of O' Sullivan's
concept of Manifest Destiny. The difference being that Beveridge's religious
argument is often expressed in a language inspired by a scientific approach. In
the full version of the speech, America's destiny appears as "divinely
logical" which seems to suggest a mechanistic view point. god's grace is
perceived as inevitable and later refers to "nature's law" in
association with divine determinism paving the way for a pseudo scientific
explanation of expansion.
- Another dimension is added with his constant reference to the idea of a
historical mission, of "duty" (paragraph 5). This alludes to the
traditional puritan notion of stewardship revived during the Gilded Age
by the Gospel of wealth. The duty was now to civilise people along with
evangelisation.
- This is supplemented with arguments in terms of a need to extend democracy to
the oppressed people (paragraph 5). this is somewhat ironical in view of what
follows as this does not go as far as bringing freedom to all: "The rules
of liberty ... self-government."
- Finally, the insistence on the sense of mission appears as a thin veil for the
major preoccupation - America’s economical predominance. His use of the term
"reward" (paragraph 6) referring to the parable
of Talent, associates both religious language and economic language. He speaks
of rewards in the form of new markets and riches, an idea present in the Gospel
of wealth which defines wealth as a sign of God's blessing. The real aim is
indeed America's commercial supremacy hence the recurring use of the words
"power" and "domination" (last paragraph)
II]
Beveridge's presentation of anti-imperialist and his answer to the objections.
Again
the approaching elections constitute preoccupations for the short term but
whether the conquered territories will remain American is for the long term.
Beveridge wants expansion to continue beyond the annexation of the Philippines.
He first focuses on the appeal of the values of the American Revolution. Are
they contradictory with annexation and the concept of the people? These values
do not apply to colonised people invoking inferiority as a reason. Moreover he
rejects the idea that the constitution should follow the flag. This involves
several key ideas.
The notion of equality is strongly rejected by Beveridge (paragraph 8,910) for
the conquered territories are incapable of self-government. He expresses clear
racist views and has no scruples in describing the "savages and alien
populations" (paragraph 10 ) as inferior. He even envisages a
colonial status for the newly acquired territories because "if England....so
can America." Besides Beveridge points out that the experience of the
Indians suggests a similar way to deal with the conquered peoples. His language
constantly opposes "we" to "those people and savages are
assimilated to "children" (paragraph 8). Beveridge even pushes the
argument further in saying (paragraph 9) "a formula of words"
suggesting that those words had no substance. There is a parallel between the
way he deals with the American principles and the way southerners considered the
Blacks before the Civil War. He finally justifies the conquest of the
Philippines as a rampart to the greedy competition taking place between other
powers. If the US does not control the Philippines other powers will do so.
Conclusion:
These two patterns of vocabulary show a great deal of cynicism and/ or naivety. This militant celebration had a purpose: to convince the electorate. here lies the rhetorical nature and quality of the text: insistent repetitions of words and syntactical patterns, the constant use of questions and answers which give the text a polemical quality, a dialogue with the public. The text seems to be highly representative of a key moment of American history revealing the ideology of the time.
On imperialism 
Carl Schurz